Father Siby Vadakel and Others vs The State of West Bengal and Others

R.K. Bag, J.—1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding of C.R. No. 294 of 2014 pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Hooghly by preferring this revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly against the present petitioners and the said petition of complaint was registered as C.R. No. 294 of 2014. The petitioner No. 1 happens to be the principal of Don Bosco School at Bandel (hereinafter referred to as "the said school"). The petitioner No. 2 happens to be teacher of the said Don Bosco School, Bandel and she was the class teacher of Section ''A'' of Class VIII of "the said school" at the relevant point of time. The petitioner No. 3 is a member of disciplinary committee of "the said school. The contents of the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 disclose that her son was victimised, humiliated and given transfer certificate from "the said school". It is alleged that the petitioner No. 2 inflicted physical and mental torture on the son of the opposite party No. 2 in various ways and on different occasions in order to create pressure to take private tuition from the said teacher. It is further alleged in the said petition of complaint that the opposite party No. 2 and her husband were compelled to admit the allegation made against the son of the opposite party No. 2 under threat of causing damage to the future carrier of their son. It is also alleged in the said petition of complaint that the son of the opposite party No. 2 has been suffering from frustration, depression and various ailments after his admission in a school at Visakhapatnam in Telengana after issuance of transfer certificate in his favour by "the said school" on May 6, 2014.

Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the son of the opposite party No. 2 used the facebook account in the internet for maligning the reputation of the petitioner No. 2 and "the said school". He further submits that the son of the opposite party No. 2 was not amenable to the discipline of "the said school" and violated the guidelines given to the students in the diary issued by "the said school" in favour of the students. He also argues that the conduct and behaviour of the son of the opposite party No. 2 compelled the authorities of the said school to take disciplinary action against him and to issue transfer certificate to the son of the opposite party No. 2 without causing further damage to the carrier of the said student. Mr. Kabir has specifically pointed out from various documents annexed to the revisional application how the opposite party No. 2 and her husband have admitted on various occasions before the authorities of "the said school" about the misconduct and misbehaviour of their son and how they tendered apology and made prayer for continuation of the studies of the son of the opposite party No. 2 in the said school. According to Mr. Kabir, the contents of the petition of complaint do not disclose any offence punishable under Sections 323/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code for which process was issued against the petitioners by learned Magistrate.

None appears on behalf of the opposite parties in spite of service of notice and copy of the application as reflected from the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners before this Court. On consideration of the contents of the petition of complaint, I find that no offence is made out under Sections 384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but the allegation made against the petitioner No. 2 in paragraph 8 of the petition of complaint suggests offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the question for consideration is whether the allegation made by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners in the background of rusticating the son of the opposite party No. 2 from the said school will be treated as mala fide. Admittedly, the son of the opposite party No. 2 was involved in the activities for which he was not permitted to continue his study in the said school by the Principal of "the said school". The opposite party No. 2 and her husband tried their best to apologise before the petitioner No. 1 so that the son of the opposite party No. 2 may continue his study in the said school. The said effort was made by the opposite party No. 2 and her husband even after issuance of transfer certificate by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the son of the opposite party No. 2 on May 6, 2014. The opposite party No. 2 filed the petition of complaint on September 29, 2014 when the opposite party No. 2 and her husband failed to persuade the school authorities for continuation of study of her son in "the said school". The above back ground facts suggest that the opposite party No. 2 filed the petition of complaint in a mala fide way in order to take revenge after rusticating her son from the said school by the petitioner No. 1 by issuing the transfer certificate.

The proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 102 of "State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal" reported in , (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426 for quashing the criminal proceeding is as follows:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

It is laid down by the Supreme Court in the above report that a criminal proceeding may be quashed when the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In my view the instant petition of complaint is filed by the opposite party No. 2 in a mala fide way with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner after failing to persuade the authorities of "the said school" to permit her son to continue his study in "the said school".

In view of my above findings, I can safely hold that this is a fit case where I should invoke my inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the instant criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding being C.R. No. 294 of 2014 pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Hooghly is quashed.

Criminal revision is, thus, disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.