CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Sudipta Maitra, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Saugata Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sofia Nesar, Adv. Mr. S. Sett, Adv. Mr. N. Kr. Gupta, Adv. Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Subhadeep Maitra, Adv. Mr. Surajit Basu, Adv. Mr. Anand Keshari, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Adv.

03.09.2025

03.09.2025 2 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The instant matter was listed under the heading “To Be Mentioned” at the behest of the petitioner and opposite party no.2/defacto complainant in view of the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and joint compromise petition filed praying for quashing of the impugned proceedings.

2. The petitioner, being the accused, has preferred this instant application under Section 482 of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1245 of 2017 corresponding to Arsha Police Station case No.102 of 2017,

22.08.2017 registered section 406/409/120B/471/468/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is now pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties submits that disputes between the parties have been settled out of Court. A joint petition for quashing of the proceedings has accordingly been filed by the petitioner and the President of Arsha High School, who is the Opposite partyno.2/ de facto complainant. A copy of the resolution adopted by the School Board has been filed by the President of the School/opposite party no.2, is taken in record.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for quashing of the instant 3 case on the ground that the allegations in the case are serious in nature, involving public money and that the case started under Section 409 of the IPC together with other sections against the accused and initiated investigation.

5. In this context, Mr. Maitra, learned senior counsel submits even if on merit this case is liable to be quashed as the FIR was registered pursuant to an order passed by Ld. Trial Court passed in an application filed under Section 156(3) by the erstwhile President of the School alleging misappropriation of funds of Rs.2,60,000/- . It is submitted that the said application was not in accordance with law inasmuch as it was vague, non-specific & unsupported by an affidavit. The Ld. Trial Court, despite such infirmities directed registration of FIR which resulted in abuse of process of law.

6. The application was filed by the de-facto complainant without supporting by an affidavit. The learned Trial Court should not have passed order directing registration of FIR without verify the truth and the veracity of the allegations. The allegations must have to be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made to protect unnecessary harassment of the accused.

7. The allegations of misappropriation of fund by criminal breach of trust were false, fabricated and based on manufactured story. 4 Petitioner is innocent and he has been false implicated. To bolster of his contention, the learned senior counsel places reliance of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1 and Babu Venkatesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another2 indicating that the application filed by the erstwhile President before the trial court under Section 156(3) was without supporting an affidavit and if the application is not supported by affidavit credence of allegations cannot be satisfied.

8. Upon perusal a copy of application annexed with the revisional application, this Court also does not find the said application was not supported by any affidavit, same should have affirmed by the complainant to remove doubt of frivolous complaints and ensure applicant take responsibility for his claims.

9. In view of the facts, the allegations or contentions whatever made in the said application could not have been fully reliable and repose confidence on the allegations but the trial court overlook the such provisions and directed to officer-in-charge to registered FIR against the petitioner. Now, after realisation of mistake by erstwhile president, the present President himself come forward and filed a joint petition of compromise praying for quashing of the impugned proceeding on the basis of resolution taken by the board.