The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to quash the FIR and charge sheet in a case alleging illegal alteration of land and water bodies in connection with a proposed university project at the Ramkrishna Vivekananda Mission campus in Agarpara. The petitioner, a reputed scientist and non-resident Indian, had been accused of filling two ponds on the Mission’s property without obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities, leading to registration of criminal proceedings in February 2014 under the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act and the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petition argued that he had been authorised to undertake the project by a memorandum of understanding executed in 2013 with the Mission and that the criminal case was malicious, rooted in later civil disputes following a change in the institution’s leadership.
In his challenge, the petitioner contended that the proceedings were mala fide and legally untenable, asserting that cognisance under the Inland Fisheries Act could only be taken on a complaint by a designated authority, not on a police report, and that the alleged criminality arose from a dispute over contractual authority rather than any clear statutory breach. He also maintained that he was acting within his authority under the alleged agreement to construct the international university project funded by a substantial philanthropic donation executed through his foundation.
The Mission and the State opposed the revision, asserting that extensive filling of water bodies, preparatory construction work, and felling of trees had been carried out without sanctioned plans or statutory approvals, and that the investigation had revealed prima facie evidence of violations of land use and water body protection laws. They contended that the Magistrate had properly taken cognisance of the matter and that civil disputes over agreements did not negate alleged statutory violations.
The High Court, led by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, examined the statutory framework and noted that offences under the Inland Fisheries Act are cognizable and non-bailable, reflecting legislative intent to allow prosecution without the procedural fetters that apply to certain other provisions. The court rejected the argument that cognisance could only be taken upon a formal complaint by an authorised fisheries officer, holding that where investigation reveals sufficient material to support prima facie offences, cognisance by a magistrate is not improper.
The court further observed that the pendency of civil disputes regarding the validity of agreements or authority of parties does not bar criminal proceedings where there are allegations of statutory violations. It emphasised that entrustment with a project does not absolve compliance with mandatory legal requirements before altering the nature of land or water bodies, and that these issues raise disputed questions of fact requiring detailed scrutiny.
Relying on established principles cautioning against conducting mini-trials at the quashing stage, the court held that it could not delve into contested documents or decide whether prior permissions existed at this threshold. The High Court pointed out that since charges had not yet been framed, the petitioner was free to place all materials before the trial court for consideration at the appropriate stage. Given that prima facie materials existed to justify continuation of proceedings, the High Court declined to quash the FIR and charge sheet. The revisional application was accordingly dismissed, with the court clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the eventual merits of the case.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.