Skip to content


Santi Ranjan Sen Gupta Vs. A.K. Dutta and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantSanti Ranjan Sen Gupta
RespondentA.K. Dutta and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....magistrate, barasat, dismissing the petition of complaint filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties 1 to 5.2. the petitioner alleged that on february 29, 1964, at 3 p.m. the petitioner along with some other persons were holding some consultations and discussions for finding out ways and means of ensuring the safety and security and welfare of the local people inside a room of kalyangarh balika vidyalaya when the opposite parties nos. 1 to 5, opposite party no. 1 being the additional superintendent of police, 24-parganas, opposite party no. 2 being the asst. commandant, eastern frontier rifles, opposite party no. 3 being a sub-inspector of police, habra, opposite party no. 4 being an assistant sub-inspector of police, district intelligence branch, barasat, and some other.....
Judgment:

R.N. Dutt, J.

1. This Rule is against an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barasat, dismissing the petition of complaint filed by the petitioner against the opposite parties 1 to 5.

2. The petitioner alleged that on February 29, 1964, at 3 P.M. the petitioner along with some other persons were holding some consultations and discussions for finding out ways and means of ensuring the safety and security and welfare of the local people inside a room of Kalyangarh Balika Vidyalaya when the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5, opposite party No. 1 being the Additional Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas, Opposite Party No. 2 being the Asst. Commandant, Eastern Frontier Rifles, opposite party No. 3 being a Sub-Inspector of Police, Habra, opposite party No. 4 being an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, District Intelligence Branch, Barasat, and some other police men trespassed into the said building, dragged the persons holding the discussions, manhandled and assaulted them.

3. The petitioner filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on March 24, 1964. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined the petitioner under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but dismissed the petition of complaint, presumably under Section 203 of the Code on the ground that Section 197 of the Code was a bar to such prosecution as prior sanction of the appropriate Government was not obtained for the prosecution of the opposite parties.

4. Mr. Sen, who appears for the petitioner before us, has argued that before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate there were no sufficient materials to show that there was an order under Section 144 of the Code in operation on the relevant date, that a meeting was being held in violation of the order and that the opposite parties were acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. When the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint, he had before him the petition of complaint and the initial statement of the petitioner. It can, of course, be reasonably said that these materials were not sufficient for the learned Magistrate to find that an order under Section 144 of the Code was in operation on the relevant date, that a meeting was being held in violation of that order and as such the opposite parties were acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. Mr. Sen, therefore, submits that this is a fit case for further enquiry. But we do not think that any useful purpose would be served by an order for further enquiry in this case. We have before us the affidavits of the petitioner as also of the opposite parties 1, 3, 4 and 5 and from these affidavits and the annexures thereto, it appears that an order under Section 144 of the Code was in operation on the relevant date, that a meeting was being held inside the Kalyangarh Balika Vidyalaya and that the opposite parties acted or purported to act in the discharge of their official duties. No previous sanction has admittedly been obtained foil their prosecution. Section 197 of the Code will, therefore, be a bar to this prosecution. We do not, therefore, think that this is a fit case for interference in revision.

5. In the result, the Rule is discharged.

K.K. Mitra, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //