Not allowed to face the ordeal of deal as no grave suspicion raised against the respondents: The High of Calcutta

 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION THE HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH C.R.R. 24412 Sukla Mukherjee & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal For the Petitioners Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee For the State Mr. Nazir Ahmed Mr. Supreem Naskar Ms. Ritushree Banerjee Mr. Rana Mukherjee Ms. Sujata Das Ms. Debjani Sahu Heard on : 21.09.2021 and 27.09.2021 Judgment on Tirthankar Ghosh J: The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the charge sheet filed in connection with Kanksa Police Station Case No. 167 of 2011 dated July 24 2011 under Sections 498A 307 34 of the Indian Penal The instant case was initiated on the basis of complaint addressed to the Officer in Charge Kanksa Police Station by Bandana Mukherjee. The sum and substance of the allegations in the letter of complaint are as follows: The complainant was married to Gobinda Mukherjee about 1 ½ years back and the said marriage was a social marriage. The complainant alleges that immediately after her marriage she was mentally and physically tortured by her mother in law Sukla Mukherjee father in law Murari Mohan Mukherjee and brother in law Manotosh Mukherjee. To that effect earlier also she informed the police station and somehow or the other such dispute was resolved. However on 23rd July 2011 at about 9.00 p.m. the aforesaid 3 accused persons assaulted her and her husband Gobinda Mukherjee and the younger brother in law i.e. Manotosh Mukherjee poured kerosene over her body when she somehow fled away to save herself. Lastly she alleged that over this incident her sister in law Anjana Bhattacharjee and her husband Pradip Bhattacharjee were also involved. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the peculiarity of the present case is that the same has been initiated in order to grab the property. The complainant has left out her husband and implicated rest of the family members of matrimonial home in order to attain her ulterior purpose. In view of the contentions advanced by the petitioners Mr. Rana Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing for the State was directed to produce the Case Diary. Accordingly the Case Diary was produced before this Court. It reflects from the Case Diary that the Investigating Agency on conclusion of investigation in connection with Kanksa Police Station Case No. 167 of 2011 dated 24.07.2011 was pleased to submit charge sheet against the 5 petitioners who have approached this Court. I have perused the Case Diary and the materials collected by the Investigating Agency to arrive at their conclusion and assessed whether a case under Sections 498A 307 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the accused petitioners and I have found that the prosecution in order to prove its case has relied upon 9 witnesses which includes the complainant Bandana Mukherjee Gobinda Mukherjee husband of the complainant Sanyashi Mazumdar acquaintance of the complainant Bidhan Boral neighbour of the complainant Dipak Bose neighbour of the complainant Dr. Rathin Mukherjee and 3 Police Authorities namely Sub Inspector Partha Ghosh Ram Ranjan Patra and Sukumar Sen of Kanksa Police Station. I have perused the statement of the complainant as also the other witnesses including the injury report and the statement made therein by the complainant to Dr. Rathin Mukherjee. In the letter of complaint although there are specific role in respect of the physical and mental torture being inflicted upon the complainant by petitioner Nos. 1 2 and 3 but no definite role of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are appearing. The injury report which has also been relied upon by the prosecution do not refer to any complicity of the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5. In fact in the injury report which is a statement made by the complainant Bandana Mukherjee to the doctor it has been stated as follows: “She was been assaulted by her father in law and mother in law and brother in law. She was kicked on abd and was poured kerosene with attempt to homicidal burn.” The only allegation made against the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are that they were also involved in the offence. In view of the materials appearing in the records of the case which include the complaint the injury report and the statement of witnesses it can be said that there may be some suspicion against the petitioner No. 4 and 5 but no grave suspicion arise from the aforesaid materials on record. Having regard to the settled principle of law under such circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner No. 4 and 5 should not be allowed to face the ordeal of trial. Consequently the further continuance of the prosecution arising out of the Kanksa Police Station Case No. 1611 dated 24.07.2011 and the orders passed therein so far as the petitioner No. 4 and 5are concerned are hereby quashed. However the Learned Trial Court would invoke the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case materials surface against them in course of evidence. As there are materials appearing against the petitioner No.1petitioner No. 2and petitioner No. 3 the trial should proceed against them. As such the Learned Magistrate would take steps for progress of the trial of the case and take the same to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of time. Thus CRR 24412 is partly allowed. Pending application if any is consequently disposed of. Interim order if any is hereby vacated. Case diary be returned to the Learned Advocate appearing for the All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment if applied for be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. 

Summary: The family matter linked to Section 498A, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, allowed petitioner number 4 &amp;5 to not face the ordeal of trial as there was no grave suspicion from the materials on record. Petitioners 1,2 &amp;3 have to face the trial. The High Court of Calcutta led through the single bench by Mr Justice Tirthankar Ghosh in the case of Sukla Mukherjee &amp; Ors. v. the State of West Bengal [CRR/2441/2012]. The instant case was initiated on the basis of a complaint addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Kanksa Police Station by Bandana Mukherjee. The facts of the case are that the complainant was married to Gobina Mukherjee about 1.5 years back. Complainant alleges that after her marriage she was mentally and physically tortured by her mother-in-law Sukla Mukherjee; Murari Mohan Mukherjee, father-in-law, and Murari Mohan Mukherjee, brother-in-law. However, on 23 July 2011, the aforesaid three accused persons assaulted her and her husband Gobinda Mukherjee. Her brother-in-law that is Manotosh Mukherjee poured kerosene over her body, and she somehow fled away to safety. She also alleged that her sister-in-law, Anjana Bhattacherjee and her husband, Pradip Bhattacherjee were also involved. The counsel from the petitioners submitted that the peculiarity of the case is that it has been initiated in order to grab the property, the complainant has left out her husband and has implicated the rest of the family members to attend her I’ll terrier purpose. The court concluded that “I have perused the statement of the complainant as also the other witnesses including the injury report and the statement made therein by the complainant to Dr. Rathin Mukherjee. In the letter of complaint although there are specific role in respect of the physical and mental torture being inflicted upon the complainant by petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but no definite role of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are appearing.” The High Court of Calcutta directed “In view of the materials appearing in the records of the case which include the complaint, the injury report and the statement of witnesses it can be said that there may be some suspicion against the petitioner No. 4 and 5 but no grave suspicion arise from the aforesaid materials on record. Having regard to the settled principle of law under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner No. 4 and 5 should not be allowed to face the ordeal of trial.”