Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uddipto Roy & Ors vs State Of W.B. & Another on 7 January, 2021
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 1546 of 2020
Uddipto Roy & ors.
Vs.
State of W.B. & another
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta
: Ms. Sofia Nesar
: Mr. Santanu Sett
For the State : Mr. Arijit Ganguly
: Mr. S. Dawn
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee
: Mr. Bibek Dey
Heard on: 7th January, 2021
Judgment on : 7th January, 2021
The Court:
This is an application for quashing of an investigational
proceeding in G.R. Case No. 4819 of 2020 pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barackpore,
North 24 Parganas arising out of Titagarh Police Station Case
No. 451 of 2020 dated 21.08.2020 under Sections 323, 325,
406, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
A report filed on behalf of the State regarding intimating
the defacto-complainant is taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits as follows. The petitioners are not the relatives of the
victim's husband. They are mere neighbours. On 26.6.2020,
the neighbours of the husband lodged an information with the
police about the disturbance and ruckus created by the victim
and her family members in the neighborhood. As a counter
blast, some of such neighbours have been falsely implicated in
the present case. As would be evident from a prior complaint
lodged by the victim on 29.07.2020, it was clearly mentioned
that the assault in question was perpetrated by the husband
and her family members. As such, the present petitioners
cannot be arraigned as accused in this case.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits
as follows. As would be evident from the statements of the
victims' parents as well as two neighbours of the accused, the
present petitioners are also relatives of the husband. As such,
the present petitioners cannot be exonerated on the ground
that they were merely the neighbours of the husband no
reference about whom was made in the earlier complaint of the
victim. Besides, a prima facie case is made out against the
present petitioners regarding commission of the alleged
offences.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-
complainant/opposite party submits that the points raised in
this revisional application are disputed question of facts and
can only be decided during trial.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the
revision petition and the case diary.
From the statements of witnesses, especially of two
independent witnesses, it appears that the present petitioners
are the relatives of the husband of the victim/defacto-
complainant. Therefore, the prior complaint made by the victim
on 29.07.2020 and the First Information Report cannot be
questioned vis-à-vis the present petitioners on this score that
they were not the relatives of the husband. After all, it was
clearly stated in the prior complaint as well as in the First
Information Report that the offences were committed by the
husband and his relatives. At best, the issue whether the
petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the victim or not
would be a disputed question of fact that could be decided only
during trial.
Besides, from a plain reading of the First Information
Report and the statements of the witnesses contained in the
case diary, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made
out against the present petitioners.
The investigation is going on and I find no ground to
interfere with the same.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this
application.
Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 1546 of
2020 is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be
delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for,
upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta,J.)
ssi
