Sunil Biswas vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 549 Cal

In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.

CRR No. 1728 of 2020

Sunil Biswas Vs.

State of West Bengal and Ors.

For the Petitioner       :Mr. Samrat Chowdhury, Adv.
                          Mr. Sandip Das, Adv.


For Opposite Party       :Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv.
No. 2                     Mr. Soumya Nag, Adv.


For the State            :Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Learned APP
                          Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Adv.
                          Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv.

Heard on                 : 20.01.2021

Judgment on              : 27.01.2021



Subhasis Dasgupta, J:-

The court is approached under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the

impugned First Information Report, lodged at Kalighat Police Station being

Case No.94 of 2020 giving rise to proceedings, registered as CGR Case

No.2304 of 2020.

Learned Advocate Mr. Samrat Chowdhury representing the petitioner

challenged the First Information Report, now pending investigation, alleging

the pending criminal prosecution to be a counter productive of a matrimonial

suit already lodged against the de facto complainant and thus purposive one

and harassive also. Further contention was raised by Mr. Chowdhury

submitting that the petitioner proposing quashment was not the principal

accused, and no offence could be said to have been committed furnishing the

ingredients of the offence, complained of against the instant petitioner. More

so, the de facto complainant got himself previously married on the date of

marriage, shown in the complaint. Taking such grounds, petitioner proposed

for quashment of the F.I.R. pending investigation.

Learned Advocate Mr. Rana Mukherjee representing the State submitted

that the petitioner was one of the perpetrators to a deep rooted conspiracy,

and in consequence thereof petitioner with other co-accused persons duped de

facto complainant thereby inducing the de facto complainant to get one lady

married, upon making false presentation of that lady to be a divorcee one,

after forging a Court document, granting mutual divorce to a woman, other

than the lady, with whom the de facto complainant was made to marry. After

making reliance upon the presentation held in course of negotiation for

marriage by the petitioner with other co-accused persons, subsequent to an

advertisement published in a daily Bengali newspaper, de facto complainant

fell a victim of cheating.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee representing private opposite party reacted to the

submission raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner by submitting

that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had already rejected the prayer

for anticipatory bail of the petitioner holding that custodial interrogation was

necessary to unravel the nature and extent of the fraud in consequence of a

deep rooted conspiracy. Mr. Chatterjee candidly submitted with his usual

frankness that if the proposed quashment was taken care of in terms of the

points raised by the petitioner, the very purpose of the investigation will be

frustrated causing investigation to suffer huge prejudice. Upon taking such

grounds, the proposed quashment was sought for dismissl.

The crux of the contention levelled against the petitioner is that he

assisted the principal accused in hatching up the alleged conspiracy leading to

procurement of a forged Court document granting divorce in the name of

parties, other than the principal accused. In the process of hatching up

conspiracy, the petitioner is alleged to have made significant contribution,

when the negotiation for marriage of the de facto complainant/opposite party

No.2 was held, and in course of negotiation for marriage, the petitioner

presented himself to be the brother of the prime accused, as divorced sister.

The attention of Court is drawn to some documents in case diary, which

are alleged to have been forged in procuring a fictitious divorce decree

standing in the name of principal accused, being an out come of deep rooted

conspiracy, hatched up taking support of the petitioner and other co-accused

persons. In the advertisement published in a Bengali daily circulation, the

prime accused was allegedly mentioned as a divorcee wife, and upon being

attracted by such advertisement, when negotiation for marriage was followed,

the petitioner projected his stand claiming himself to be the brother of a sister

divorcee (prime accused). The purported divorce decree presented in course of

negotiation for marriage standing in the name of Partha Chatterjee and Sikha

Biswas (prime accused), dated 27th January, 2014 relatable to Mat Suit

No.113 of 2013 of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court,

Barasat, North 24 Parganas, was turned out to be a fictitious document in

course of the enquiry, which originally connected Mat Suit No.113 of 2013,

disposed of by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court,

Barasat granting a divorce decree on mutual consent under the Special

Marriage Act in the name of Kumaresh Mondal and Sucharita Mondal (Modak)

on 3rd February, 2014. Since extensive investigation is going on, and upon

visualization of which, the Division Bench of this Court in CRM No.10239 of

2020 rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on December

11, 2020 observing therein that custodial interrogation was necessary to

unravel the nature and extent of fraud committed in this case in consequence

of a deep rooted conspiracy, the pending investigation undertaken on the

basis of impugned F.I.R. does not call for any interference.

In the given circumstances, the pending investigation has its own

significance and individual potentiality, irrespective of alleged institution of a

case describing it to be a counter productive of a Matrimonial Suit pending

against the de facto complainant. Investigation of a case is interferable in a

case subject to making out a strong case revealing palpable illegality in the

institution of a criminal case. Since the case under challenge is not of such a

nature and dimension, in which vigorous and extensive investigation is called

for, the Court is not agreeable to the contention, as presented by the Learned

Advocate for the petitioner in the instant case. Having considered the rival

submissions of the parties, the court is of the view that it is not an

appropriate case in which the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the

Code is necessary to be exercised. Accordingly the prayer for proposed

quashment is refused. The revisional application accordingly stands

dismissed. CD be made over forthwith.

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court

below without making any delay.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given

to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all

necessary formalities.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)