After observing that the objective was to give a civil conflict the appearance of a criminal offence, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal proceedings.

CAUSE TITLE:

Usha Chakraborty & Anr v/s State of West Bengal & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER:

30th January 2023

JUDGE(S):

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

PARTIES:

Appellants: Usha Chakraborty & Anr.

Respondents: State of West Bengal & Anr.

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), dismissed the criminal case after observing that it was an attempt to disguise a civil disagreement as a criminal offence. The Court observed that the application made pursuant to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was ambiguous and failed to identify the core elements of the offences. Additionally, the applicant hid the fact that a legal lawsuit was pending on the subject.   

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Criminal Procedure code 

• Section 482 - Nothing in this Code will be construed as limiting or affecting the inherent authority of the High Court to issue any orders that may be required to carry out any orders made hereunder, to avoid exploitation of any Court's procedure, or to further the interests of justice.
• Section 156(3) – indicates the power of police to order for investigation under cognizable offence and clause (3) states that any magistrate can order for investigation who is empowered under 190 of Cr.P.C

BRIEF FACTS:  

• An FIR was lodged under section 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 upon several grounds. Power under section 482 was declined by the High court on the bases that there was prima facie case; therefore the said petition was set aside. 
• The crime was registered under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the investigation began. The appellants in this case challenged the very decision to transmit the application for an investigation according to Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the ensuing registration of the aforementioned F.I.R., as well as the on-going inquiry. Several arguments were put forth; including the claim that the application by the respondent in this case moved before learned Magistrate did not specify the commencement of cognizable offence and that the complaint's accusations are motivated by malice and would show that they are purely civil disputes between the parties. 
• The respondent did use civil remedies, but was unsuccessful in getting a favourable ruling on interlocutory petitions made in a matter that had been legally commenced. He brought the application without providing the vital information on the topic of the suit by him out of annoyance and as a means of intimidation. 
• The respondent in this case hid other information, including the information that he was fired from his position as secretary and, in reality, was kicked off the Board of Trustees itself before the application upon on which the F.I.R. got filed. Before filing the aforementioned lawsuit, the respondent first complained about being removed from the secretary's position to the office of the Labour Commissioner.
• The contested ruling would show that the High Court refused to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. and concluded that they would, at least least, set out a case for inquiry. It would also demonstrate that the High Court did not give any thought to the important and pertinent arguments made by the appellants.
• SLP is filed against the judgement dated 17th May 2022 by High of Calcutta. The appellant approached the High court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.  

QUESTIONS ROSE:

• Whether non-exercising the power given under section 482 was a justified act by the High court to revoke the judgement dated April 5, 2017?
• Whether the claims made in the aforementioned application are enough to support the alleged offences

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• It was submitted by the council that a high school run by the aforementioned Trust called Road Bank Educare is where the applicant is the secretary. He has a long history of involvement with the Managing Committee, and engages in a variety of charitable endeavours.
• It is to be noted that by modifying the aforementioned Trust Deed unlawfully and getting it registered on July 12, 2016, the Accused Persons illegally withdrew the Complainant from such post from the aforementioned Trust while keeping the Complainant in the shadows even without supplying any details.
• After the complainant reported the event, the accused verbally and physically harassed him and assaulted him. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 then threatened to murder the complainant if he took any more action.
• The accused individuals wrongfully forced the complaint out of the aforementioned school while keeping all of the complainant's relevant paperwork and documentation hidden. The petitioner repeatedly asked for the return of the aforementioned paperwork, but they ignored it.
• Since the accusers have copied the school and trust paperwork for use over an extended period of time and have practised forgery, the complaint is aware of this. The petitioner believes that the alleged conspirators are not telling the truth.
• Despite the fact that the plaintiff repeatedly notified the Madhyamgram Police Station of everything, the police station's administration has not yet taken any action.
• It is prayed that the accused be properly punished by conducting proper investigation 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The respondent filed title action No.363 of 2015 in the matter of the appellants, requesting a statement that appellant is the Secretary of the institution in response to the removal of the appellants from that position. 
• The claim is currently continuing by Barasat, the respondent, asserted this claim in the affidavit notwithstanding the creation of the aforementioned lawsuit and the fact that it is now pending before the First Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. Aside from that, the application states that he serves as the Secretary of the trust-run school.
• The respondent has essentially acknowledged that the trusteeship and the lawsuit brought to have him removed from his position as secretary are still pending. The fact that unfavourable rulings were passed in the interlocutory motions in the aforementioned civil suit, as well as the civil court's prima facie judgment and conclusion that the respondent is no longer eligible for the position of secretary or trustee, are likewise uncontested therein.
• The uncontested and undeniable facts that the respondent confessed in the counter-affidavit would demonstrate that there was a civil dispute about the dismissal of the respondent from both the trusteeship and the position of school secretary.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:

• The present appeal is allowed and justified 
• It has been observed by the court that there is absolutely no question that the respondent is attempting to use the criminal proceedings as a tool of intimidation against the appellants because the respondent has previously addressed the jurisdictional civil court by filing a civil complaint, which is still pending.
• The undisputed facts that the respondent submitted in the pending title suit in 2015, had no basis for obtaining a temporary restraining order against his expulsion from the position of secretary of the school managing committee and trusteeship, it was also submitted that the stated request for an order for inquiry only in April 2017, and the lack of a basis for arguing that despite such removal, he had a right to be notified of the matters of the school and the trusteeship
• Therefore, it is believed that this case demands the use of the authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to nullify the FIR that was filed in response to the Magistrate Court's order in the aforecited application and all subsequent actions taken in accordance with that instruction. The court further declares without reservation that allowing the criminal case against the appellants to proceed under the aforementioned conditions would constitute an abuse of the judicial system and an injustice.
• As a result, the FIR No. 189 of 2017 that was filed against the appellants in this case on April 11, 2017, at the Madhyagram Police Station, as well as any further proceedings based on that FIR about the appellants, are invalidated and set aside.

CONCLUSION

It is to be concluded that Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction should only be used sparingly, carefully, and with care. To put it another way, the power should only be used to further the interests of justice and only in situations when failing to do so may lead to a violation of due process.

The petition submitted under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code must meet the necessary criteria to attract the claimed offences in order to trigger the filing of an F.I.R. and any ensuing investigations based on it. In other words, if the petition's claims are unclear and unspecific regarding the claimed offences, an action for the formation of an F.I.R. and an inquiry into the alleged offences' conduct cannot be made.

In the present case regarding the aforementioned offences, the respondent made no particular allegations against the appellants. The factual situation would show that the incident mentioned above served as both the incentive for and the goal of the criminal proceedings, whereas the issue at hand was primarily of a civil nature. The fact that the respondent had already filed a civil lawsuit with the jurisdictional civil court regarding the issue at hand, which is of a civil nature, in addition to that the appellants and respondents have provided the matter a cover of criminal offence, without a doubt in light of the fact that the respondent is attempting to utilize the criminal proceedings as a tool of intimidation against the appellants.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement