Malabika Ghosh And Others v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
C.R.R.1887 of 2023 With CRAN 1 of 2024 D/L17 30.04.2024 Bpg.
In Re: An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Malabika Ghosh and others
Versus
State of West Bengal and another Ms. Jagriti Bhattacharya Ms. Swarnali Saha.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Apalak Basu Mr. Nazir Ahmed Mr. Soumyajit Chakraborty.
...for the opposite party no.2.
Mr. Binay Panda Ms. Puspita Saha.
...for the State.
Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings being Saktigarh Police Station Case No.65 of 2022 dated 26.02.2022.
Mr. Binay Panda, learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the case diary. The case diary reflects that on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted before the jurisdictional court under Sections 448/323/506/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the charge-sheet it also reflects that there are five witnesses out of which two are police witnesses and the three witnesses are Chhanda Nandi, complainant, Suvodip Nandi, the son of the complainant and Asish Majumdar, the son-in-law of the complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the enclosure in the revisional application which relates to a proceeding arising out of Purba Bardhaman Sadar Women Police Station Case No.20 of 2022 dated 14.01.2022 under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned advocate submits that the present case has been engineered for circumventing the proceedings relating to Purba Bardhaman Sadar Women Police Station Case No.20 of 2022 and is a defence which has been made out against the daughter-in-law by foisting the present criminal case upon her and her parents. At the time of hearing of the revisional application, Mr. Apalak Basu, learned advocate appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 prays for fling of the affidavit-inopposition.
However, as the revisional application has matured and has been pending for a considerable period, the prayer for filing affidavit-in-opposition at this stage is refused by this Court. Learned advocate appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 submits that the delay in the present FIR was because of the reason that the police authorities refused to act on the complaint which was lodged with the Police Station as well as with the Superintendent of Police. However, by the said time almost three months have passed.
am of the firm opinion that so far as the petitioner no.3, namely, Renuka Ghosh is concerned, no case has been made out against her. So far as the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, namely, Malabika Ghosh and Anath Bandhu Ghosh, there are some allegations in the complaint. Whether the said allegations are counter-blast to the offences complained of in the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (and other Sections) registered at the instance of the petitioner no.1 requires a thorough assessment.
Accordingly, the petitioner no.1 and 2 are directed to prefer their application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional court. The said court on perusal of the whole of the documents in both the cases would arrive at its findings whether the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are required to face the trial or the charges against them should be dropped. Consequently, the revisional application being CRR 1887 of 2023 is partly allowed.
The proceedings against the petitioner no.3, namely Renuka Ghosh is hereby quashed. If she is on bail, she may be discharged from the bail bonds. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the learned trial court will deal with the same as has been directed above.
Pending connected application, if any, is consequently disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)