H.N. Sarma, J.@mdashInherent jurisdiction of the Court is prayed to be exercised by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in CR No. 54/2009 u/s 120-B/500 IPC wherein the he is arrayed as an accused which is pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar filed against him by the complainant respondent.
2. I have heard Mr. S. Dev, learned Sr. counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the complainant respondent.
3. The complainant instituted the aforesaid criminal case in the Court of the learned CJM, North Tripura, Kailashahar alleging commission of offence u/s 120-B/500/34 IPC by the petitioner and four others. The learned Trial Court upon perusal of the averments made in the complaint petition and documents filed therewith and considering the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr PC and having found prima facie case, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 120-B and 500 of the IPC and issued summons to the accused petitioner including other co-accused named in the complaint petition. Upon receipt of the summon, the present petitioner has approached this Court by filing this criminal petition u/s 482 Cr PC praying for quashing of the proceeding.
4. Mr. S. Dev, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the accused petitioner lead me to the averments made by the complaint petition as well as the connected documents filed by the petitioner reflecting certain information received through the application made under the RTI Act. Learned Counsel submits that a bare dreading of the complaint petition and accepting the statements therein to be correct and true, it does not disclose any criminal offence against the accused petitioner. Mr. Dev, applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
5. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel, however refuting this contention of Mr. Dev, submits that a bare reading of the statements/averments made in the complaint including the information obtained under the RTI Act and considering the matter in its entirety including the facts disclosed in the complaint petition it cannot be said that no criminal case is made out against the accused petitioner to go for trial. Accordingly, the learned Sr. Counsel strenuously prays for dismissal of this petition in the absence of any apparent illegality in taking cognizance of the'' offence by the learned CJM, Kailashahar, North Tripura.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by both the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the connected complaint petition and the application dated 24.2.2009 filed by the accused petitioner under the RTI Act seeking certain information and other relevant documents made available before me including the order dated 13.5.2009 taking cognizance of the offence as well as initial deposition of the complainant which is recorded u/s 200 Cr PC.
7. The principle of quashing a criminal case is by now well streamlined. A criminal case can be quashed at its threshold in the event if, upon reading of the complaint or FIR and the documents annexed thereto and accepting those to be correct and true, it is found that no criminal case is made out. A criminal case can also be quashed if the authority taking cognizance has no jurisdiction to do so and the proceeding is absolutely without jurisdiction or barred under specific provision of law. The Apex Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) as referred above by Mr. Deb, has laid down certain illustrative circumstance on which a criminal case can be quashed. In the case in" hand the complainant at paragraph 3 of the complaint petition has state as follows:
That the accused No. 1 filed an application on 24.2.2009 under Right to Information Act before the State Public Information Officer who is also officiating the post of Sub-Divisional Medical Officer, Chaillengta, Dhalai district. Tripura stating that Dr. Chakma is believed to be Bangladeshi national who has illegally obtained Indian Citizenship through fabricated documents in violation of the Foreigners Act, 1946; the Citizenship Act, 1956, the Passport Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. The complainant again in the complaint petition at paragraph 5 (C) and (D) alleged as follows:
C. That the accused No. 1 in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and in active connivance with the other directors of the company, with the intention of causing harassment and injury to the brother of the complainant filed an application under RTI Act on 31st July 2007 before the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, near Civil Secretariat Complex, Agartala for obtaining personal information about the brother of the complainant Mr. Suhas Chakma.
D. That thereafter, the accused No. 1 filed another application under RTI Act on 21st September, 2007 before the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, near Civil Secretariat Complex, Agartala for obtaining further personal information about the brother of the complainant and the same was also done with the intention of causing harm and injury to the brother of the complainant.
9. At paragraph 10 of the complaint petition, the complainant has alleged as follows:
That on receipt of the RTI application filed by the accused No. 1, the same was handled by 5/6 officials of SDMO office, Chailengta, Dhalai, Tripura and the matter got circulated amongst the colleagues of the complainant and after a few days some colleagues as well as departmental staffs telephones him and also verbally enquired as to whether he is really a Bangladeshi and/or whether he has really committed any other offences and from this the complainant understood that this mischievous application has damaged his reputation as well as social standing.
10. Turning to the application filed under the RTI Act seeking certain information, we find that in the said application the accused petitioner averred interdict that Dr. Chakma (complainant) is believed to be a Bangladeshi national, who has illegally obtained Indian citizenship through fabricated documents in violation of the Foreigners Act, 1946; the Citizenship Act, 1955; the Passport Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and therefore his antecedents need to be ascertained. It is to be noted herein that aforesaid information was not furnished to the petitioner by the authority under the RTI Act. However, the petitioner is stated to have taken other legal course of action against the said refusal as available under the RTI Act itself; which however is not the subject matter of this petition.
11. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has strenuously urged that similar complaint was also lodged by the petitioner against his brother under the RTI Act at Delhi seeking certain information of similar nature making similar allegation which having been refused by the authority, the Central Information Commission, directed the authority to provide such information. However, upon furnishing the relevant documents and information, the case against his brother as Bangladeshi national was enquired by the Delhi police and was found not to be substantiated. However, in the instant case, though we are concerned with the present petitioner but the submission of Mr. Bhowmik that the aforesaid action of the complainant is indicative of his unholy attempt of the petitioner to harass the complainant with mala fide intention cannot be altogether ruled out.
12. Section 3 of the RTI Act provides for right to get some information by a citizen. Section 6 of the Act provides for making request for obtaining information. Sub-section 2 of Section 6 provides that in an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting the person concern.
13. In the instant case, on perusal of the application filed by the complainant it is found that apart from the required facts, the petitioner has made certain allegations against the complainant stating herein above to be of Bangladeshi national and procured Indian citizenship through fabricated documents in violation of the Foreigners Act, 1946; the Citizenship Act, 1956, the Passport Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal code, 1860. The allegations leveled against the accused petitioner is that the said application making aforesaid allegations against the complainant was widely circulated in different circles and queries from different persons as regards his nationality and involving in criminal acts came to the complainant.
14. Mr. Dey strenuously urged that even if the allegation against the complainant u/s 500 of the IPC the same would not be attracted as the complainant would be covered under eighth exception of Section 499 of IPC. In supporting his contention Mr. Deb has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in
15. Exception 8 to Section 499 referred to by Mr. Deb provides that an accusation made in good faith against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject matter of accusation. Whether the aforesaid fact was stated in the application filed under the RTI Act in good faith or not are the facts to be determined would be required to be proved by evidence before that Trial Court only. That apart, Section 6 of the RTI Act does not provide for making any such allegation in securing the information except those that may be required for the purpose of contacting the concerned person.
16. From the aforesaid discussion and bare reading of the complaint petition, the connected documents annexed therewith as well as the initial deposition of the complainant and the points urged by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner I do not find that it attracts the provision of Section 482 Cr PC for quashing the same at the threshold without providing any opportunity to the complainant to prove the allegation against the petitioner in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. All the points urged herein by Mr. Deb being the question to be determined during the course of trial by adducing necessary evidence in within the domain to be decided by the learned Trial Court only, prima facie, on perusal of the statement made in the complaint and the relevant documents annexed therewith as well as the initial deposition of the complainant, I am not satisfied that no criminal case to go trial could be made out by the complainant.
17. Consequently, this criminal petition lacks merit and the same stands dismissal. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
