Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nita Nandi (Mani) vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 14 July, 2016
Author: R.K. Bag
Bench: R.K. Bag
1 S/L.6. C.R.R. No.920 of 2016 July 14, 2016 Bpg. In the matter of : Nita Nandi (Mani).
...petitioner.
Versus The State of West Bengal and others.
...opposite parties.
Mr. Arunabha Maitra, Ms. Indrani Nandi.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Bidyut Ray, Ms. Aparna Ghosh ...for the opposite party no.2.
Mr. Manjit Singh, Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta.
...for the State.
The petitioner has preferred this revision challenging the order dated December 14, 2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore in G.R. no.669 of 2015, by which learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for reinvestigation of Barrackpore Women Police Station Case no.11 of 2015 dated February 7, 2015 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer has made perfunctory investigation by not making any attempt to seize the gold ornaments and other articles of the petitioner kept in the locker of bank of the husband. He further submits that the petitioner supplied receipts and cash memos for purchase of various articles, but the Investigating Officer has not made any investigation with regard to those documents. He also submits that the petitioner was subjected to sexual torture by the husband and the husband had taken snap of naked body of the petitioner and threatened to upload the photographs of nude picture of the petitioner in the website, but the Investigating 2 Officer did not submit the charge-sheet disclosing offences punishable under the Information Technology Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the criminal case needs to be reinvestigated by the police.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State has referred to the materials of the case diary and submitted that the Investigating Officer issued notice to the petitioner to supply the name of the website where the nude pictures of the petitioner were uploaded by her husband, but the petitioner did not respond to the said notice. He further submits that the gold ornaments and other articles of the petitioner were misappropriated by the husband of the petitioner and as such the charge-sheet is submitted against the husband for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the gold ornaments and other articles of the petitioner were returned to the petitioner by her husband long back when the matrimonial suit was pending before the court at Barasat.
Having heard learned counsel representing the respective parties and on consideration of the written complaint treated as FIR and the charge- sheet and other documents annexed to the revisional application and the documents filed by way of supplementary affidavit, I find that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the husband of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On close scrutiny of all the applications filed by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer and before the commissioner of police at Barrackpore, I do not find that the petitioner had disclosed the specific articles or gold ornaments kept by her husband in the locker of the bank and as such I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to recover the gold ornaments and other articles of the petitioner kept in the locker of the bank of the husband. The cash memos and receipts produced by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer have been duly seized by the Investigating Officer and a copy of seizure list is supplied to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has failed to supply the name and particulars of the website where the nude picture of the petitioner was uploaded by her husband, I do not 3 think that no fruitful purpose will be served by giving direction for further investigation of the criminal case. If any evidence is adduced by the prosecution witnesses during the trial of the case to justify prosecution of the husband of the petitioner for any offence punishable under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, learned Magistrate of the trial court is directed to take into consideration the said evidence and modify the charge against the husband of the petitioner for ends of justice. It is pertinent to point out that learned Magistrate has no authority under the law to give direction for reinvestigation of the case as prayed by the petitioner. I also do not find any justification to give direction for further investigation of the criminal case and for filing of supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In view of my above findings, I do not find any merit in the prayer of the petitioner either for reinvestigation or for further investigation of Barrackpore Women Police Station Case no.11 of 2015 dated February 7, 2015. Thus, the revisional application is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for favour of information and necessary action.
(R.K. Bag, J.)