দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - Absolute Crl. Misc. Case No. 4673 of 2007 dated-23.10.2024 561 Tareq Rahman

  Present:

                 Mr. Justice A.K.M. Asaduzzaman

And

                  Mr. Justice Syed Enayet Hossain

         Criminal Misc. Case No. 4673 of 2007

Tarique Rahman

       ……………Petitioner. -Versus-

                            The State

……….Opposite party.

Mr. A.M. Mahbub Uddin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kayser Kamal, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Zakir Hossain Bhuiyan, Advocate with Mr. Md. Moniruzzaman Asad, Advocate with Mr. Gazi Kamrul Islam, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Shahiduzzaman, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Mahmudul Arefin, Advocate with

Mr. Maksud Ullah, Advocate with

Mr. K.R. Khan Pathan, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Roqonuzzaman, Advocate with

Mr. H.M. Shanjid Siddique, Advocate with

Mr. Khan Md. Moinul Hasan, Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Khanam Irin, Advocate with

Mr. M. Sabbir Ahmed, Advocate and

Mr. Manabendrey Roy Madol, Advocate and Mr. Tariqul Islam, Advocate and 


1

Mr. M. Mahbubur Rahman Khan, Advocate

…….For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Jasim Sarker, D.A.G. with

Mr. Rasel Ahmmad, D.A.G. with

Mr. Md. Geas Uddin Gazi, A.A.G. with

Mrs. Shamima Akhter Banu, A.A.G. and

Mrs. Laboni Akter, A.A.G.

.. ... For the state.

Heard and judgment on 23rd October, 2024. A.K.M. Asaduzzaman,J.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to

show cause as to why the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 171 of  2007  arising  out  of  Gulshan  P.S.  Case  No.  34  dated 08.03.2007 under section 4 of the Ain Srinkhola Bighnakari Aparadh (Druta Bichar) Ain, 2002, now pending in the Court of Druta Bichar Adalat No.2, Dhaka should not be quashed.

Facts relevant for disposal of this rule are that the informant is a contractor and owner of Al-Amin Construction Co. Ltd. The accused invited him at Hawa Bhaban and demanded Tk. 1(one) crore as subscription and threatened that the informant would not be allowed to carry on with his business if he fails to meet the demand of the accused. The informant succumbed to the demand of the accused out of fear. Accordingly on 30.12.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. the informant along with Captain (Rtd.) Sheikh Abdul Hye  went  to the  Hawa  Bhaban and handed  over  a  cheque  of Tk.1(one) crore to the accused but the accused refused to accept the cheque and asked the informant to pay in cash. Thereafter the informant went to his constituency and sent his younger brother Faroque Ahmed to Dhaka with the cheque, which was encashed on  04.01.2007  and  on  the  same  day  at  about  3.00  p.m.  said Faruque Ahmed paid the money to one Apu at the instance of accused  Tarique  Rahman.  Thereafter  the  informant  lodged  the FIR.

The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2007 and was taken to police remand for 4 days. But during the remand no information was recovered from the petitioner regarding the case.

After  investigation  police  submitted  charge  sheet  on 17.03.2007  under  section  4  of  the  Ain  Srinkhola  Bighnakari Aporadh Druto Bichar Ain, 2002.

Thereafter he filed this Misc. Case under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained the instant Rule.

Mr. A.M. Mahbub Uddin, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of the rule submits that from the plain reading of the entire FIR it will appear that neither the petitioner was  named  in  the  FIR  as  an  accused  nor  any  offence  was disclosed against him in the FIR and as such the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Drawing our attention to the decision of the case of The State Vs. Md. Shahjahan Ali and ors. reported in 19 MLR(AD) 2014 submits that in the similar case the Appellate Division has held  that  the  inordinate  delay  in  lodging  of  the  F.I.R.  giving political  colour  created  the  prosecution  story  doubtful  and unbelievable.

In that view of the matter when the occurrence was shown in the instant case on 04.01.2007 and thereafter case was initiated after long delay on 08.03.2007 having no explanation, got the reliance of the decision referred to above in the instant case. Since it was a colourful exercise of power while initiate the proceedings, it is nothing but an abuse of process of the court, which is liable to be  quashed.  The  learned  advocate  further  submits  that  upon perusal of the instant FIR it will be evident that the petitioner was implicated with alleged occurrence out of political animosity with the direction of a vested quarter as such the story of FIR is false, fabricated and concocted and as such the proceedings is liable to be quashed.

The learned advocate further submits that from the plain reading of the FIR it will further appear that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence in any way and the informant lodged the instant case implicating the accused petitioner with a view to harass and humiliate him and to tarnish his image and to destroy his political career. He further submits that the threat of extortion  was  made  on  30.12.2006  and  Tk.1(one)  crore  was delivered on 04.01.2007 exactly after 2 months and 4 days without any tenable explanation case was lodged on 08.03.2007 since on the dates alleged the accused petitioner even if desirous of doing so  was  not  in  any  position  to  exert  the  kind  of  attitude  and intimidation  as  alleged,  which  casts  grave  doubt  on  the prosecution story, particularly given the vagueness and absurdities in the complaint itself and as such the proceeding of the instant case is liable to be quashed.

Mr. Md. Jasim Sarker, the learned Deputy Attorney General on the other hand although opposes the rule but find it difficult to oppose the submission  as  been  made  by  the  learned  advocate appearing for the petitioner.

Heard  the  learned  Advocate  and  perused  the  documents annexed to the application and the judgment cited by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

It appears that in the instant case petitioner although was not been named in the FIR. Upon perusal of the FIR it will appear that in the instant case the accused petitioner was shown to be committed  an  offence  of  taking  ransom  from  the  informant, wherein the occurrence was shown to be happened on 04.01.2007 but  the  case  was  shown  to  be  initiated  long  thereafter  on 08.03.2007 having no explanation of causing delay. The aforesaid inordinate delay in lodging the FIR obviously create some doubt about  the  commission  of  any  offence  if  at  all  been  there  as narrated in the FIR.


In that view of the matter our Appellate Division in the cited case namely in the case of the State Vs. Md. Shahjahan Ali and ors. reported in 19 MLR(AD) 2014 has opined that:

“the inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. giving political colour created the prosecution story doubtful and unbelievable.”

Regard being had to the above law, fact and circumstances of  the  case  together  with  the  decision  cited  above,  we  find substances  in  the  submission  of  the  learned  advocate  for  the petitioner.

The impugned criminal proceedings, which is initiated on 08.03.2007  showing  the  date  of  occurrence  on  04.01.2007 contents smells of sufficient doubtful thereby causing the story very  shaky,  unbelievable  and  preposterous  accordingly  the proceedings is liable to be declared as abuse of the process of court, and is quashed.

Moreover upon going through the fact narrated in the FIR we also find substance in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that if the story is taken to be true it contains no ingredients of an offence under section 4 of the Ain Srinkhola Bighnakari Aparadh (Druta Bichar) Ain, 2002 at least as against the petitioner.

In  all  view  of  the  matter  we  find  substances  in  the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute.

The impugned criminal proceedings as has been initiated against  the  petitioner  which  is  lying  before  the  Druta  Bichar Adalat  No.2,  Dhaka  under  section  4  of  the  Ain  Srinkhola Bighnokari Aparadh (Druta Bichar) Ain, 2002 is hereby quashed.

The order of  stay  granted  earlier is hereby  recalled and vacated.

Communicate the judgment at once.

Syed Enayet Hossain, J:

I agree.