Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2429/2010 on 24 August, 2010
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
89. 24-08-10
g.n.
CRR No. 2429 of 2010 Mr. Mohinoor Rahaman ...for the petitioner Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record.
In connection with G.R. Case No. 820 of 2005 arising out of Taltala P.S. Case No. 50 of 2005 under Sections 498A/406/448/120B of the Indian Penal Code, on completion of investigation, police submitted final report praying for discharge of the accused from the case. The report contains following reasons for submission of final report, which are quoted below :-
"Instant case was recorded on the basis of a court petition wherein the victim house wife complained physical & mental torture against her husband & his relatives, including criminal breach of Trust in report of Stridhan property. Another case had already been recorded in this P.S. on self- same issue vide Taltala P.S. c/no. 106 dt. 4.6.03 u/s 120B/498A/323/406/403 IPC, which was charge sheeted on 19.6.04. Both the cases the accused persons are mostly common and nothing new surfaced in the instant case from previous one. None was arrested in this case.
Investigation of the case has been closed by AC(III) CD after declaring the case as M.F. It appeared all the 4 (four) FIR named accused may kindly be discharged from this case."
Upon receipt of such final report, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of notice to the defacto complainant. In response to such notice, the defacto complainant appeared in court and filed a naraji petition. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the defacto complainant and considering the police report in final form, directed further investigation by the 2 Officer-in-Charge, Taltala Police Station. Hence, this criminal revision.
The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order impugned is wholly illegal and erroneous and inasmuch as over the self-same incident earlier, another F.I.R. was lodged for the self-same offence and the said case has ended in charge sheet and the trial has commenced by framing of charge. Accordingly, he submitted that allowing the order to give effect would be completely an abuse of process of court.
I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the materials on record.
It appears that the Investigating Officer of this case submitted the final report basically on the grounds that the accused in both the cases are almost same and the over the self-same issue, another F.I.R. was lodged and same has ended in charge sheet. It was the further reason for final report that no new fact has been disclosed in the F.I.R.
Now having gone through the F.I.R., I find that the opinion of the Investigation Officer is not at all correct which would be evident from the following allegations made in Paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 of the second F.I.R. in connection with which the learned court has passed the order of further investigation.
"12. That the local police started a case thereon but was very slow and hesitant to proceed with any sorts of investigation but tried to persuade the petitioner to settle all disputes with the accused persons. Then when the opposite party applied for anticipatory bail in the City Sessions Court, Kolkata, she under the deepest pressure of the police had to sign on a compromise and by showing that he obtained an order as prayed for.3
13. The petitioner states that immediately thereafter the opposite parties became more virulent and aggravated and daring and often called at the marital home and openly threatened to throw her with her two sons out of the flat on the pavement and abused her in most filthy and provocative languages and assaulted her and her two sons mercilessly by kicks and blows. The petitioner immediately then reported the matter to police but without any effect.
14. That on the above backdrop the petitioner has been utterly shocked and surprised to be served with a lawyer's letter dated 23.12.2003 on 25.12.2003 and note its contents. By the said letter the said Lawyer, Sri Susanta Dutta has claimed that she had been given 'Talak' by the accused no. 1 on 25.09.2003 and that she had assured him to vacate the said marital home which she hasn't done and so threat has been hurled upon her to vacate the same. The true copy of the said letter has been annexed hereto and marked with the letter "B".
15. The petitioner states that on 23.12.2003 evening at about 7 P.M. the accused persons in a flock entered into the said flat, deeply coerced her and abeted her to commit and threatened her to forcibly oust her with her children from the said flat and also threatened all of them with dire consequences, loss of lives and bloodshed unless she would immediately vacate the flat and also not deny their story of talak. The petitioner refused to bow down to their threats and demanded return of her Stridhans stated above when the accused persons became wild and maddened with anger and flatly refused to return any a drop the Stridhans to the petitoiner."
In view of above, I have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the learned court below is absolutely just and proper. The same does not suffer from any illegality or 4 infirmity. I do not find any merit in this criminal revision and same stands dismissed.
Criminal section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioner, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)