Improper Notice to Complainant is an Abuse of Process of Law: Calcutta High Court in Property Sale Dispute

High Court sets aside Magistrate’s order, mandates proper notice and reconsideration of final report. The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) of Sealdah, which had accepted a final report of “Mistake of Fact” and discharged the accused in a criminal case without properly notifying the complainant. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) emphasized the necessity of proper service of notice and adherence to due process, remanding the matter for reconsideration.

The case, registered as CRR 2980 of 2019, involves a criminal revision petition filed by Sri Amitava De Bhowmick against the State of West Bengal and others. The petitioner challenged the ACJM’s order dated 19^th July 2017, which accepted a final report as Mistake of Fact and discharged the accused without proper notice to the complainant. The case stems from a dispute over a property sale agreement, with allegations of criminal acts under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act.

Justice Dutt noted the inadequate service of notice to the complainant, highlighting reliance on emails and improper return of service. The order under revision mentioned that emails were sent to the complainant through local police stations, but the complainant did not appear in court. The High Court found this method insufficient and not compliant with legal requirements for proper notice.

The court acknowledged ongoing civil and consumer disputes related to the same matter but emphasized that such disputes do not negate criminal liability if a prima facie case is made. The court referred to Supreme Court guidelines on the criminalization of civil disputes, noting that civil proceedings should not be used to overshadow potential criminal conduct.

The court found prima facie evidence of criminal offenses, warranting further legal examination. It was observed that the accused’s claim of payment was unsupported by documentation, strengthening the petitioner’s allegations of criminal behavior.

The High Court extensively discussed the principles of service of notice and due process in criminal proceedings. Justice Dutt emphasized that proper notice to the complainant is essential before accepting final reports under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The judgment underscored that failure to serve notice properly constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law.

Justice Dutt remarked, “The service attempted upon the petitioner/complainant herein was not due service. Thus the order under revision if allowed to remain will be a clear abuse of the process of the law and is thus set aside, in the interest of justice.”

The High Court’s decision to set aside the ACJM’s order reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to due process and the proper service of notice in criminal proceedings. By allowing the complainant to file a ‘Narazi’ application and directing the Magistrate to reconsider the final report, the judgment ensures that the legal framework is adhered to, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. This decision is expected to impact future cases, emphasizing the necessity of proper notice and due process in criminal law.

Date of Decision: 16^th May 2024

Sri Amitava De Bhowmick vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.