Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Item No vs The State Of West Bengal on 8 May, 2013
Author: Toufique Uddin
Bench: Toufique Uddin
08.05.2013 CRR 787 of 1996 Court No.29 Sri Binay Roy Item No. 1 Vs. The State of West Bengal (dismissed)
Seen the office report. Administrative notice sent by this Court appears to have duly been served. Still then none comes on behalf of either of the parties. In such a position I dispose of the revision as follows:-
The petitioner prayed for quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 216 of 1995 arising out of Alipurduar Police Station Case No. 73 dated 26.03.1995 under Sections 376/314/201/109 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the background of this revision the fact in a nutshell is that on 26.03.1995, one Sushila Roy, wife of Late Prafulla Roy lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Alipurduar Police Station making allegation against the petitioner hereto and two other persons namely Mukul Singha Roy and Amal Roy to the effect that one Sulekha Roy, a minor girl of the complainant and a student of class-VIII became pregnant by one Mukul Singha Roy. It was further alleged that Sri Binoy Roy, treated the said victim girl for the purpose of miscarriage and subsequently forced the said complainant to put signature for the purpose of caesarian operation before the Government Health Centre when the condition of the victim girl became serious. It was further alleged that after completion of caesarian operation held by the local hospital, the victim girl expired.
sn Police started a criminal case bearing no. 73 of 1995 under Sections 376/314/201/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner with two others namely Mukul Sinha Roy and Amal Roy. Thereafter, the principal accused i.e. Mukul Sinha Roy surrendered before the ld. SDJM, Alipurduar and he was enlarged on bail. Immediately thereafter, he made an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble Court and on 08.03.1996, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court rejected the said application.
After receiving First Information Report, Alipurduar Police Station started a Criminal Case being No. 73 of 1995 under Sections 314/201/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and subsequently Section 376 was added. It was contended that penal Sections are not applicable in the present proceeding against the petitioner. As such G.R. Case No. 216 of 1995 initiated by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar on the basis of FIR and investigation made by the police is bad and liable to be quashed.
There was ingredient of Sections 376/314/201/109 of the Indian Penal Code in the First Information Report. The complainant did not allege in the FIR that the petitioner committed any rape. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for death of the victim girl. The complainant did not also allege in the FIR any allegation against the petitioner and other two co-accused in respect of disappearance of evidence. Section 109 of the Indian Penal code is not applicable against the present petitioner. The continuance of such investigation would be an abuse of power of the police authority. Hence the prayer for quashing.
The copy of the FIR has been annexed with the revisional application. Therefrom it transpires that one Sushila Roy lodged a compliant against the accused Mukul Singha Roy, Binay Roy and Amal Roy. From the complaint it also transpires that the role of the present petitioner, a Kabiraj, was an attempt for operation of the foetus by resorting to caesarian device in a health centre. This much.
Ex facie the complaint does not show that there is justification of continuance of further proceeding. In such a situation, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.
(Toufique Uddin, J)