SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, by means of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks to quash the entire proceedings arising out of Belur P.S. Case No.135 of 2014 dated 06.05.2014 under Sections 387/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
(2.) AN FIR was lodged by Somdeb Bandyopadhyay, Inspector of Police, Detective Department, Howrah City Police against two accused, accused No.1 being the petitioner herein on 06.05.2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 387/120B of the Indian Penal Code. As per the F.I.R. a petition from an anonymous person regarding extortion of huge amount of money from businessmen of Howrah area who were engaged in purchase of railway scrap iron was received and in course of enquiry it was revealed that the present petitioner and the co -accused have been regularly extorting money from businessmen dealing in iron scrap purchases from Indian Railways by putting them in fear of their life over telephone engaging some local people and a few businessman as their accomplice. Such activity has been going on since the year 2007 after the murder of one iron trader Kishan Moni Jain in Howrah (ref: Bally P.S. Case No.18/07 dated 23.01.2007 under Sections 302/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act). That case ended in acquittal for lack of witnesses against the criminals. It was further revealed that a part of the money collected by extortion is used in running fake currency business. It was further learnt that five other cases on the charge of murder and attempt to murder are pending against the present petitioner. On the basis of such materials the said Inspector lodged a suo moto complaint and the aforesaid case was registered. Thereafter, in course of investigation sufficient evidence could be collected against the FIR named accused namely the present petitioner and thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted a prayer before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah for issuance of a production warrant for producing the petitioner/accused who is now lodged in Sitamarhi District Correctional Home in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No.182 of 2005 under Section 25(i)(d) of the Arms Act. On 18.06.2014 on the basis of such prayer and on perusal of the materials on record the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah issued the production warrant fixing 02.07.2014 for production of the petitioner/accused. Feeling aggrieved against the same the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Debasish Roy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order issuing production warrant against the petitioner was passed without application of mind and in a very mechanical manner. The Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the FIR does not make out any prima -facie offence punishable under Sections 387/120B of the IPC. MR. Roy further contended that the Learned Magistrate ought to have satisfied himself that the FIR and the prayer discloses any offence for which the accused must be summoned to answer the charges but in the instant case nothing sort of this has been disclosed. He contended yet further that the complaint was lodged by police on the basis of some information and it is solely on the basis of surmise and conjecture. Such complaint does not mention as to when and on which date the accused committed the offence or attempted to commit the offence for which the police thinks that the personal liberty of the accused which is his fundamental right could be infringed. The Learned Magistrate was under obligation to be satisfied prima facie that the accused could be involved in commission of the alleged offence and that his presence during investigation is required. Therefore, according to him the initiation of the proceeding is bad in law and is liable to be set aside/quashed. Mr. Ayan Basu, Learned Counsel appearing for the State on the contrary submitted that from the contents of the FIR and the case diary statements, a prima facie case of extortion as defined in Section 387 of the IPC and also a case of Criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120B of the IPC is made out. Referring to the statements of witnesses including the victims recorded during the investigation he submitted that it becomes very much clear that the present petitioner/accused is the kingpin of the racket/syndicate which collects money from the businessmen of Howrah who take part in auction of railway scrap materials by putting them in fear of death. Not only that previously two such businessmen were shot dead in broad day light as they refused to yield to the demand of the extortionists. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the petitioner would be at liberty to raise defences available to him under the law in the Trial Court. His defence cannot be considered at this stage. He further argued that although while considering the application for quashing of the First Information Report the allegations made therein and the materials collected during the course of investigation are required to be considered but truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of trial. He, however, fairly submitted that the Learned Magistrate should have recorded some more reasons in his order but that alone is not sufficient to assail such order.;