- (1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as the Code) 1973 for quashing of proceeding in connection with GR Case No. 1270 of 2006 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Srirampore arising out of Chitpur Police Station Case No. 114 of 2006 dated 6.8.2006 under section 420/406/120B of the IPC.
(2.) It is the submission of Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the present accused persons that no role can be attributed as against these accused persons. He fairly submitted that this Pratima Banerjee is the mother of principal accused Sanjoy and Sanjib Banerjeje is the younger brother of that accused. He also took me to the FIR and the Charge sheet to convince me that no specific role was played by the accused in committing the crime. He also took me to the order passed by the learned trial court on 16.07.2009 wherein the learned trial court was pleased to reject the prayer for discharge of these accused petitioners. He also submitted that except one line in the FIR, there is practically no allegation against those accused persons, and as such, the proceeding against those accused persons may be quashed. He further submitted that one Title Suit No. 107 of 2008 is pending before the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Srirampore. On my asking, Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the flat in question is under lock and key.
(3.) The prayer for discharge of these accused persons is opposed by Mr. Basu, the learned advocate appearing for the State. He submitted that in assessing this application under section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court should not nurture only on the FIR considering the fact that the matter was investigated by the police and statement of the witnesses were recorded and documents were examined by the hand writing expert. He took me to the page no. 64 of the case diary, wherefrom it appears that some cheques were examined by the hand writing expert. He also questioned as to why Section 467 or Section 468 and 471 of the IPC were clamped in the charge sheet against these accused persons. I have taken into consideration the argument put forward by Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Basu. I have gone through the FIR. I have taken into consideration the statement of the witnesses like Anima Dutta, the defacto complainant, Suprakash Dutta, the son of the de facto complainant, Gouri Roy, Rabindra Nath Vadra a neighbour. I have also perused the documentary evidence. In such a case, there cannot be any order of quashing as the entire allegation as leveled against those accused persons can only be judged on appreciation of evidence. I can not fetter the hands of the court from recording evidence as against those accused persons by quashing the proceedings against these accused persons. It may be noted that section 120B has also been clamped against those accused persons.;