16 Aug 2023 3:14 PM GMT
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a ‘doctor’ accused of wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation by an octogenarian Advocate, residing in the same co-operative society as him.In directing the case to proceed towards trial due to a prima facie case being made out, a single-bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: The complainant is a 85 years...
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a ‘doctor’ accused of wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation by an octogenarian Advocate, residing in the same co-operative society as him.
In directing the case to proceed towards trial due to a prima facie case being made out, a single-bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held:
The complainant is a 85 years old resident of the same co-operative society. The medical papers in respect of the opposite party/complainant in the case diary include an injury report dated 10.08.2019, which shows that on examination, the doctor found pain and swelling over the left cheekbone. It has been noted by the learned Mediator that the petitioner has failed to appear for mediation on two occasions, in spite of being duly served. The offences alleged are all compoundable. The mediation could not be taken up because of the absence of the petitioner in this case on two dates. The medical papers in this case diary and other materials show that there is prima facie materials in the present case against the petitioner to proceed towards trial. The revisional application being CRR 2365 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed.
It was contended by the petitioner that he was a doctor by profession, and a ‘righteous and vigilant member’ of the Vivekanada Samabaya Abashan Samity Ltd. (“society”), and like his deceased father, the petitioner had also protested against activities going on in the society, such as embezzlement of funds and other illegal/corrupt activities of the complainant/opposite party no 2.
The petitioner submitted that due to his activism, he became a target for abuse and bodily harm caused by the opposite party no 2, who threatened him with false criminal cases.
Petitioner argued that the complainant, who was a senior citizen, was misusing his influence and connections as an advocate to falsely implicate the petitioner, who had spoken up against the alleged malpractice and corruption in the administration of the society. The petitioner further submitted that the Board of the aforesaid society had already been dissolved by the State due to ‘defalcation of funds’ and an administrator was to be appointed periodically, every six months, to look into the affairs of the society.
It was argued that since the appointment of administrator, the complainant had failed to pay maintenance charges, and had engaged in wilfully obstructing their functions, with a view to illegally take control of the society behind the back of the administrators.
The petitioner contended that due to him raising his voice against the illegal actions of the complainant, he was targeted and the complainant filed the impugned complaint based on a “fabricated incident regarding grass cutting, inciting a provocative action consisting of breach of peace,” even though the same was not within his domain due to there being an administrator to look after affairs of the society.
The State placed on record the case diary, which revealed that the complainant was 85 years old, and that “on examination, the doctor found pain and swelling over the left cheekbone.”
Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the case-diary, the Court noted that another criminal revisional application related to the present matter, which was referred to mediation, had been sent back to the Court due to non-appearance of the petitioner before the mediator.
In holding that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioner due to the materials on record in the case diary as well as the available medical evidence, the Court dismissed the revisional application, and directed for the case to proceed towards trial.
Case: Dr. Sujoy Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr
Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
Click Here To Read/Download Order