Soham Dey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

in the Case Diary to indicate prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence and furthermore, charge sheet which has been submitted against the said accused persons is also silent as to the 3 specific overt act attributed to each of them and the extent of involvement of each of the petitioner in the alleged incident as mandated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court has the power to sift and weigh evidence through for a limited purpose and finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Charge can be framed not on mere suspicion but on the facts giving rise to grave suspicion of the accused having committed the offence. In Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 Supreme Court has made it clear that the judge while considering the question of framing the charge, cannot act merely as a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities etc, though roving enquiry by the court at this stage is not required. The order impugned passed by Magistrate suffers from perversity mainly on two grounds. Firstly he was erred in holding that he is not supposed to consider the contention of accused persons at this stage, which can only be considered at the time of trial and secondly he failed to explain why the present petitioners are not on the same footing with that of the four accused persons, in respect of whom the same proceeding has been quashed quo the said four accused persons. On a fare reading of section 239 Cr.P.C., if upon consideration of the materials collected during, investigation and making such examination if any, of the accused as he thinks necessary, he thinks that 4 the charge against the accused is “groundless” he can discharge. In the present case, it may be seen from the materials available in record that no specific allegation against either of the petitioner could be substantiated during investigation. Supreme Court in State Vs. Arun Kumar, reported in (2014) SCC Online SC 1018 has held that even at the stage of charge, if two views are possible and one of the views give rise to suspicion only as distinct from grave suspicion, the court would be empowered to discharge accused at that stage. On perusal of the materials available in the Case Diary, it also appears that the injury report does not suggest any external injury. The statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that 15/16 persons were involved and “all of them”/ “some of them” have committed offence. No corroborative material to show present petition’s specific role in committing alleged offence. On the basis of such material there is hardly any chance of conviction of the petitioners at the end of trial. Moreover, the present petitioners are on the same footing with that of the four accused persons in respect of whom the instant proceeding has already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that further continuance of the impugned proceeding will be mere abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, G.R. Case No.1250(A) of 2023 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar is hereby quashed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. ) 5