HC quashes criminal case against man for plaint against dead person

Kolkata: In a bizarre case, the Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of lodging a complaint at a city police station against a dead person.

The bench of Justice Ananya Banerjee was approached by the petitioner Chandra Sekhar Pun praying for quashing a lower court order in connection with an FIR at New Market Police Station.

He prayed for quashing of a summon notice, and the order to issue such notice, to appear before the lower court for charges under Sections 182/211 IPC.

Chandra lodged a complaint at New Market Police Station in 2010 against one Shambhu Prasad Shaw and other unknown accused persons for alleged “anti-social activities”. However, on completion of investigation, it was found from the death certificate that Shaw died in 2000.

The petitioner was served with a notice by the investigating officer asking him why he lodged the complaint against a dead person. He said his predecessors jointly purchased the premises where Shaw was a tenant whose rent was paid up to May 2009, previously to the predecessor and thereafter to him and other co-owners. Chandra was unaware as to whether Shaw was dead or was alive as he was not residing there. Shaw used to run an almirah shop on the property and never physically paid the rent. One day, Chandra witnessed a man associated with certain anti-socials trying to set up another almirah at the main entrance of the premises, and on objecting to it, they took the name of one ‘Shambhu da’ which gave the petitioner the impression it was being done at Shaw’s order. However, he claimed he later informed police that Shaw was dead. The police filed the charge sheet and the magistrate took cognizance of the prayer to implicate the petitioner under Section 182 IPC. The petitioner’s counsel said it was a ‘mistake of fact’ and the act of the police reflects a retaliatory reaction against a victim. The state’s counsel said the police was “baffled at his demeanor” and therefore, the proceedings must continue.

The court quashed the order taking cognizance against the petitioner along with the order for issuing notice and the notice itself.