Case title:
Sutapa Adhikari and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Date of Order:
07.06.2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Parties:
Petitioner: Sutapa Adhikari and Ors.
Respondent: The State of West Bengal & Anr.
SUBJECT
The petitioners in this matter have contested the notifications sent to them in accordance with Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in relation to a case that was reported to the Contai Police Station. The High Court of Calcutta in this case dismissed the notices issued by the police administration, while the investigation was still underway.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 120B
- Section 409
- Section 477A
- Section 174
The Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 227
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 160
- Section 482
- Section 91
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, some notices were issued by the police which alleged to be a part of Malicious Investigation because the partitioners are family member and close to leader of the opposition party of the West Bengal and the petitioners are targeted by the ruling party and the police administration also with the ruling party.
- According to the complaint, the Contai Municipality engaged in some misleading, expensive, and unusual amounts of development and beautification projects. The petitioners said that the notifications were only given because of their close proximity to the opposition leader and that they were unaware of the case's facts and circumstances.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the impugned notices issued by the police administration against the petitioner were malicious and with the intend to only take them into the custody or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the petitioners argued that, the investigating agency had a history of arresting innocent persons under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 on earlier occasions.
- The Learned Counsel further asserts that notices under section 160 of the Cr.P.C. were also served on the current petitioners with the intent of arresting them. The petitioners' fear of being arrested while receiving notices under section 160 Cr.P.C., He further argued that it is well-founded, and evidence from earlier cases supports their claim that the investigation agency intended to arrest them. For this reason, he has asked for the notices to be quashed.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Public Prosecutor claimed that giving notices in accordance with Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. was essential to conducting a fair investigation and that tossing the notices out would be against the rule of the law.
- The learned public prosecutor further contends that the contested notices are no longer valid because they were only valid as of a specific date. As a result, the petitioners' request to have the notices quashed is no longer necessary because the notices are no longer in effect as of that date and having them quashed will be useless.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court noted that the practice of calling people unrelated to the offence through notifications under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. and then implicating them as accused was not consistent with the contents and goals of the section after taking into account the arguments made by both sides. These actions violated natural justice norms.
- The High Court's inherent authority to stop misuse of the legal system was mentioned by the court together with the significance of human liberty.
- The court also held that it was its responsibility to guard against misuse of the judicial system and uphold the goals of justice even though the impugned notices had already beyond their expiration date.
- Therefore, the court dismissed the matter with the instruction that the investigating agency was allowed to issue a new set of notices to the petitioners under Section 91and Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. if their presence were necessary while the investigation was still underway.
CONCLUSION
The High Court determined that the police's issuance of notices in accordance with Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. was malicious and in violation of the natural justice standards. The court emphasized the significance of defending human liberty and drew attention to the improper use of such notices to accuse innocent people. Despite the impugned notices having expired, the court recognized its responsibility to uphold the principles of justice and guard against abuse of the legal system. As a result, the court dismissed the case and gave the investigating agency permission to issue further notices in accordance with Section 91 and Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, so long as the petitioners' presence was required for the ongoing investigation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
