✦ High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

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

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

Judgment

1. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed at the instance of the accused persons/petitioners herein seeking quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 77 dated 31st January, 2014 under Section 4D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 arising out of Sonarpur P.S. Case No. 582 of 2013 (G.R. Case No. 2476 of 2013).

2. The brief facts of the instant case according to the petitioners are that petitioner no. 1 purchased a land under Mouza – Karimpur under Sonarpur Police Station in the District of South 24 Parganas in the year 1991. Petitioner no.1 applied for Building Plan in the purchased plot and after getting the Plan sanctioned from Gram Panchayat, as per Panchayat Act, constructed a two storied building in the said plot. There was /is no water body in the land-in- question or its surroundings or its vicinity where the petitioners purchased the land. Petitioner no. 2 being the wife of the petitioner no. 1 has no connection with the said plot of land in question or construction thereof.

3. Due to old age, the petitioners sold the aforesaid building in the month of December, 2014 and for their convenience purchased a flat in the same apartment for their daughter. 3

4. Allegations made by complainant, the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Sonarpur Block to Inspector-in-Charge, Sonarpur Police Station, inter alia, that a news published on 23rd May, 2013 in the daily newspaper “Bartaman” and subsequently a direction was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baruipur on 24th May, 2013 and on the basis of further enquiry was held on 24th May, 2013 for the same plot in question is found recorded in the name of the Collector, South 24-Parganas/different rayat. Plots are not part of East Kolkata Wetland area, and the complainant requested the police authorities to keep the constant vigil, so that illegal activities should be stopped immediately over the plots of land.

5. It was further case of the petitioners that the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Sonarpur Block requested the police authorities to take stern action against the miscreants, who are trying to change the classification of land without any prior permission from the respective authorities, and he encroached the three plots of land being Plot No. 45 of Mouza Karimpur and Plot No. 46 of Mouza Karimpur, recorded as “SALI” and another Plot No. 136 of Mouza – Deyara as “BIL” and the police authority after enquiry, filed Charge Sheet without proper investigation and proper verification the law. 4

6. In the said proceedings, none of the plot holders of the aforesaid three plots were made accused. However, petitioners herein were made accused though they are not the owners of the aforesaid three plots and reason for making them accused in the aforesaid case is unknown to them. Despite the said facts, the petitioners surrendered before the Learned Court and were released on bail upon furnishing PR bond of Rs. 1000/- by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas. From the Parcha, there is no Wet land found within the area where the petitioner no. 1 had purchased land . Hence, this Criminal Revisional application. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners filed written notes of arguments and the same has been taken on record.

8. It was further argued and submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the instant case and they have been falsely implicated into this case. As per the relevant Act, the police authority has no right to file complaint under Section 4D of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Only Collector (District Magistrate) has authority to take action if anybody violates the order of Collector under Sub-Section 5 of Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Therefore, procedure under Section 4C has not been 5 followed by the District Magistrate being Collector or by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer. Furthermore, the police authority has given the particulars of three plots in which the petitioners have no connection.

9. Before lodging complaint, no opportunity of hearing was given as per Section 3C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and Rules framed thereunder and without any basis, Investigating Officer mechanically and only on the table work submitted charge sheet without going into the details of the petitioners case. Only on the basis of name plates found in the building, they have been implicated into this case and finally charge sheet has been submitted.

10. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has not ascertained the genuine facts to uncover the truth of the allegation

made in the FIR. Apart from that, there is no single or any credible evidence found against the petitioner no. 2 indicating that she has committed any offence as alleged. Therefore, petitioner no. 2 cannot be held liable for the offence in question because of her marital status with the petitioner no. 1 only. Therefore, the charge sheet and the proceeding thereof are liable to be quashed. 6

11. Learned counsel further placed reliance of two judgments in support of his contentions that filing of the complaint on the name of petitioner no. 2 solely based on her marital relationship with petitioner no. 1 cannot justify the continuation of any proceedings against her as under: i. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.1; ii. Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Adventz Investiments and Holdings Ltd. and Ors.2. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and submitted Smt. Jharna Roy is the wife of Sri Probodh Chandra Roy, petitioner no. 1. It is also drawn attention by the learned counsel that during the pendency of this case, the petitioner no. 1/accused no. 1, Sri Probodh Chandra Roy had expired on 22.09.2018 and in that event, a report was called for and finally

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments