Calcutta High Court Denies Relief To Bank Manager Accused Of ‘Threatening’ Employee Who Complained Of Illegal Termination

Complainant submitted that the petitioner had threatened her to withdraw her case before the labour forum by allegedly “giving wrong signs” and stating that “Standard Chartered Bank, a big institution can purchase judgement”

In denying the petitioner any relief, a single-bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held:

I am unable to come to a conclusion that the written complaint is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused/petitioner. Inimical relation between the parties, in my opinion, is a double edged weapon which can be a motive for the crime as also the ground for false implication of the accused. Court is required to scrutinize their testimony with anxious care to find out whether their testimony inspires confidence to be acceptable notwithstanding the existence of enmity. Such exercise can be available in trial at the time of evaluation of evidence.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no 2/complainant had personal enmity with the petitioner as a result of which she had filed the present police complaint as a counter blast to her termination from service.

It was also argued that none of the other employees of the bank had supported the case of the complainant as per their statements under Section 161 CrPC.

Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the petitioners threats and ‘wrong signs’ to the opposite party and her parents whenever she would visit the Labour court or her advocates, had led to her parents becoming ill.

In hearing the cases of both parties, the Court perused the arguments of both parties and juxtaposed it against its powers of quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

It was held that powers under 482 CrPC were to be exercised only when there would be unnecessary harassment of an accused if trial is allowed to linger when a prima facie case for acquittal would be made out upon conclusion of trial.

Accordingly it was observed, that while the petitioners counsel had focused their arguments on the enmity between the parties being a reason for allegedly vexatious proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the same enmity could also give rise to motive on behalf of the petitioner to have committed the offences he was accused of.

Therefore, in concluding that such questions could only be answered and adjudicated on during proceedings before the jurisdictional Trial Court, the Bench dismissed the revisional application.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 287

Case: Kishore Kumar Singh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: C.R.R. 1946 of 2015