Uttam Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 7640 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Uttam Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 December, 2023

Author: Jay Sengupta

Bench: Jay Sengupta

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                              Appellate Side



Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta



                            WPA 20631 of 2023
                              Uttam Mondal
                                    Versus
                      The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the petitioner             :     Ms. Afreen Begum


                                                             .....Advocate
For the State                   :    Mr. Rajarshi Basu
                                     Ms. Shehnaz Tareq Mina
                                                              .....Advocates
For the Respondent No.6         :    Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dipanjan Dutt Mr. Arkadeb Bhattacharya ........Advocates

Heard lastly on : 11.12.2023

Judgment on : 11.12.2023

Jay Sengupta, J:

The application alleges police inaction in investigating a criminal case.

Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Perused the case diary produced on behalf of the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as

follows. The petitioner is the father of the victim deceased and the de facto

complainant of the case. The accused respondent had been torturing the

victim for quite some time. There were number of cases registered in this

regard. For the last six months, he was kept confined in the brick kiln

owned by the private respondents. After the petitioner got information about

the death of the victim, the FIR could be lodged. Initially, a charge sheet was

submitted under Section 306 of the Penal Code, although the FIR was

started under Section 302 of the Penal Code. This Court, by an order dated

19.09.2022, directed a further investigation to be conducted by a senior

Officer to be appointed by the Commissioner of Police, ADPC. Although

another Officer was engaged for investigation, but the outcome was same.

Relevant evidence was either not collected or was overlooked.

Learned senior counsel representing the private respondent submits

as follows. The story of the victim to be detained by the private respondent

for the last six months before death did not even find a place in the First

Information Report. The injuries on the dead body would clearly show that it

was nothing, but a case of suicide.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the report

and the case diary and submits as follows. The investigation has been done

by the present Investigating Officer being the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Central-II, Asansol/Durgapur Police Commissionerate. Statements of

witnesses were recorded, viscera report was collected and a statement of the

doctor was also recorded. After the completion of further investigation, a

supplementary charge sheet was submitted under Section 306 of the Penal

Code.

It appears that the Investigating Agency has taken steps to conduct a

further investigation and has already submitted a supplementary charge

sheet.

Therefore, a bulk of grievances ventilated by the petitioner have

already been redressed.

However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the outcome of

investigation, he shall be at liberty to file a protest petition before the

learned Trial Court, which shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance

with law.

No further order need be passed in the regard.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the

parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)