AGARTALA, India, May 16 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on April 13:
1. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Agniva Chakrabarti appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also, heard Learned Counsel, Ms. Paromita Dhar appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant and Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the case bearing No.PRC(SP)/112/2019 now pending before the Court of J.M. 1st Class, Court No.8, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with East Agartala PS case No.212/2018 under Section 353/506/34 of IPC.
3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chakrabarti drawn the attention of the Court that the present petitioners are the in-laws of the respondent No.2. They solemnized their daughter's marriage with the respondent No.2. Some maladjustment was going on and as such, they went to meet the respondent No.2 in his office on the alleged day so that the marital discord cropped up between their daughter and the respondent No.2- accused could be resolved. But the respondent No.2 being an Government servant by misusing his power and chair has laid one FIR against the present petitioners to the concerned PS and in absence of materials on record, the IO has submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioners for which the petitioners have compelled to file this petition seeking redress before this Court. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that save and except two office staff who are the subordinates of the informant, the IO in course of investigation could not record the statement of any other witness to substantiate the prosecution allegation which shows that the chargesheet submitted by IO was nothing but a false and concocted story just to harass the present petitioners. So, in summing up, Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged for quashing the entire proceeding now pending before the Learned Trial Court.
4. On the other hand, Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submitted that since after proper investigation the IO has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner-accused petitioners. So, at this stage, there is no material before this Court to disbelieve the prosecution story and urged for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel, Ms. Paromita Dhar appearing on behalf of the respondent-informant submitted that the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. The alleged incident took place inside the office premise on the alleged day and as such, it is quite natural that no outsiders or public witnesses would be available to support the prosecution allegation. Furthermore, from the statement of witnesses namely Shepal Ch. Shil, Jhunu Das, Subimal Chakraborty, it is clear that on the alleged day the present petitioner-accused persons entered in the office of the informant and committed the offence and as such, there is no scope to disbelieve the prosecution story. Moreover, since the trial is likely to be commenced shortly, so, opportunity should be given to the prosecution to prove the charge levelled against the present petitioner-accused persons. It was further fairly submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent-informant that if it is found that the present-accused persons are innocent and have been falsely implicated, in that case, there is every scope on their part to conduct their defence properly to establish their stand of innocence but at this stage, there is no scope to quash the proceeding pending before the concerned Learned Trial Court and urged for dismissal of the petition.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x23VSG7xMuCQ0%2F3nrBGcSVe6cwD7mWJdo5922C%2F6jI6Y&caseno=Crl.Petn./48/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010016002025&state_code=20&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
