Nazrin Banu v. The State (Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands) And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/19/2026 Nazrin Banu Vs The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) & Anr. Mr. D.C.Kabir, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S.Ajith Prasad ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State April 22, 2026 [SR] Item No.7 1.

One Nazrin Banu has preferred the instant revisional application seeking quashing of G.R. Case No.1463 of 2008 as against her and also challenging the order dated February 20, 2026, whereby the petitioner's prayer for discharge from the said case was refused.

2.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the alleged offence took place in the year 2008 and charge sheet was also filed contemporaneously. However, even after lapse of 18 years thereafter, no copy of the 50 purported documents on which the prosecution relies has been served on the present petitioner.

3.

Despite an application having been filed to that effect as well by the petitioner, till date, the said copies have not been seen the light of the day, at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

4.

Learned senior counsel takes the Court through the complaint which gave rise to the FIR as well as the preliminary inspection/inquiry report, from which it transpires that the plinth of the allegation was against the then Panchayat Pradhan

Smti Nasima Banu, who allegedly issued supply order in respect of furniture to one M/s Mubarak, a third party-outsider, instead of M/s Jai Hind Enterprises, the latter being successful bidder. However, subsequently such error was rectified and supply order was issued duly to M/s Jai Hind Enterprises, upon which M/s Jai Hind Enterprises supplied the furniture and acknowledged the receipt of the price thereof in its statement before the investigating officer.

5.

It is further pointed out that from the inspection/inquiry report, the involvement of the petitioner is not borne out at all. It only appears that the petitioner's signature appears in two places, one being a contingent bill paid to M/s Jai Hind Enterprises and the other being a cheque paid to the same entity, which was the successful bidder itself. 6.

Moreover, it is the petitioner on the basis of whose statement the FIR was registered. However, instead of citing her as the prime witness, the prosecution made her an accused. 7.

In view of the above circumstances, it is contended that no case has been made out pertaining to the offences alleged, at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and as such the petitioner ought to be discharged from the criminal proceeding. 8.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case involves numerous documents and as such discharge of the petitioner, who has been a Panchayat Secretary in the self-same Panchayat, would not be prudent at this stage. It is further submitted that there are allegations in the nature of collusion between the Panchayat Secretary as well as the then Panchayat

Pradhan, which justifies the continuous of the trial against the present petitioner as well.

9.

However, from the materials before the Court, it is crystal-clear that no case pertaining to the offence has been made out against the petitioner. Rather, the FIR was initiated on the basis of the statement of the petitioner herself and does not disclose any connection between the petitioner and the alleged offence.

10.

That apart, keeping in view of the nature of the allegation that a supply order was given by mistake to one M/s Mubarak instead of the successful bidder M/s Jai Hind Enterprises (although rectified later), the signatures of the petitioner, even if found, was on a contingent bill raised and a cheque issued in favour of M/s Jai Hind Enterprises, the legitimate recipient, and, thus, could not be justification enough to embroil the petitioner in the offence.

11.

Also, the Court cannot brush aside the fact that it was the petitioner on whose statement the investigation was initiated.

12.

Furthermore, the gross contravention of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by not supplying copies of the purported incriminating documents (as many as 50 in number) for the prolonged period of 18 years to the petitioner clearly gives rise to adverse inference against the prosecution, at least insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. 13.

It is surprising that the petitioner, being the key witness was herself, was drawn into the criminal trial merely because at

one of point of time she was the Secretary of the Panchayat, the then Pradhan of which is the prime accused. The FIR does not disclose any involvement or even connection of the petitioner with the crime.

14.

On the basis of the above discussion, this court does not find even an iota of connection between the petitioner and the alleged offence from the disclosures made by the prosecution itself and/or anything available from the records. Thus, it would be completely unjustified to compel the petitioner to face the ignominy and stigma of a criminal trial despite complete absence of any material or statement in the FIR to connect her to the crime.

15.

Accordingly, the Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Trial Judge acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner and, even otherwise, the concerned G.R. Case cannot be permitted to be continued against the petitioner.

16.

Hence, CRR/19/2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated February 20, 2026 to the extent that the same rejected the discharge application of the petitioner. The petitioner is hereby discharged from G.R. Case No.1463/2008 and the said criminal proceeding, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, stands quashed. 17.

Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance of all formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)