Nitya Gopal Nath vs The State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 1239 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 813 of 2022

Nitya Gopal Nath

-vs-

                          The State of West Bengal

For the Petitioners             : Mr. Santanu Malkhandi
                                  Mr. Sailendra Nath Chakrabarty

Heard on                        : 16.03.2022

Judgment on                     : 16.03.2022


Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application quashing of an investigational

proceeding under Sections 302, 209, 506 read with Sections 34 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case. The FIR was

lodged by the de facto complainant over the death of his son. In the

FIR, he refers to a quarrel between a co-accused and the deceased.

However, no overt act against the present petitioner has been alleged

in the same. The allegations are based primarily on surmises and

conjectures. On the basis of such allegations, the FIR cannot be

sustained as against the present petitioner. The petitioner is absolutely

innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged. Reliance is

placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geo

Varghese vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. in Criminal Appeal

No.1164 of 2021, where a proceeding under Section 306 of the Indian

Penal Code was quashed at the initial stage as the FIR did not make

out a prima facie case.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition.

In the FIR the de facto complainant alleged that his son was

having a quarrel with a co-accused. He categorically stated that on a

particular date, i.e., on January 28, 2022 at about 7:00 a.m. a quarrel

started between the said co-accused and the petitioner. Then the said

co-accused called his friends, including the present petitioner, and the

de facto complainant went there and settled the dispute for then. After

sometime, the victim went missing and the said other co-accused

laughed at the de facto complainant saying that searches would not be

of any help. After sometime, the dead body of the victim was found.

Therefore, this is evidently a case of circumstantial evidence. It

is not that in all cases of murder, there has to be an eyewitness.

A clear and categorical allegation is made in the FIR that there

was a conspiracy between the assailants in doing away with the victim.

There is also the mention of a quarrel between the co-accused and the

petitioner.

The proceeding is at a very nascent stage. Investigation is on.

At this stage, there is no way that this Court can interfere with the

proceeding on such ground that no overt act has been attributed to the

present petitioner directly connecting him to the alleged murder.

Whether the petitioner is innocent or not is a disputed question

of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court before a full-fledged

trial.

The decision relied upon by the petitioner is clearly

distinguishable on facts. There, neither did the FIR nor the suicide

note in question make out a prima facie case against the accused

therein. That is why the Hon'ble Apex Court interfered with the

proceeding. This is clearly distinguishable from the present facts.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revisional

application.

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered

to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon

compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

18/Ct.39 SD