IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue where no material exists to prima facie make out complicity of accused in a cognizable offence.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.—The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in GR Case No. 254 of 2015 presently pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman, arising initially out of Hirapur Police Station Case No. 28 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015 under Sections 498A/406/325/307/376/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (later transferred to Asansol Women Police Station for investigation), including order dated 17.06.2019 and all other orders passed therein.

2. Mr. Avishek Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law, the petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner no. 3 is the brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2.

3. That the elder son of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely, Subhas Chatterjee (since deceased and hereinafter referred to as the ‘elder son of the petitioners no. 1 and 2) was earlier married to one Sona Chatterjee nee Chakraborty but the said marriage culminated in a divorce. Thereafter, the said elder son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 got married to the opposite party no. 2 on 30.11.2006 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the said marriage, the opposite party no. 2 and the elder son of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 began residing separately at a rented accommodation at Shyambandh, Burnpur, Asansol.

4. That the petitioners, at the time of marriage of the opposite party no. 2 with the elder son of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, used to reside at Holding No. 459(N), Manik Chand Pally, Post Office – Burnpur, Police Station – Hirapur, Asansol, District – Burdwan, PIN – 713 325 and the opposite party no. 2, after her marriage with the elder son of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, never resided with the petitioners at the said address.

5. From the very beginning, the opposite party no. 2 was opposed to the notion of keeping good and healthy relationship with the petitioners. The opposite party no. 2 also did not allow the elder son of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 to keep in touch with the petitioners. The petitioners did not have any contact with either the opposite party no. 2 or their son after the marriage between the two.

6. That it came as a shock to the petitioners, when their elder son namely, Subhas Chatterjee, was purportedly found hanging in his room on 07.12.2013 and the cause of death was held to be suicidal.

7. That at the time of his death, the said Subhas Chatterjee was still residing with the opposite party no. 2. That immediately after the death of her husband, the opposite party no. 2 took all articles including her own belongings from their rented residence to her own paternal home.

8. That since the death of her husband, the opposite party no. 2 did not reside with the petitioners. However, she began targeting the petitioners with the intention to extort money from them by threatening to falsely implicate them in criminal cases. The opposite party no. 2, in connivance with notorious and anti-social elements of the society, began mentally and physically harassing the petitioners. The acts of the opposite party no. 2, harassing the petitioners, went to such intolerable extent that the petitioners chose to sell their house at Manikchand Pally and moved to their present address at Ahibushan Plaza (4th Floor), No.1 Mohishila Colony, Atta Chaki More, Simultala, Post Office – Mohishila, Police Station – Asansol, District – Paschim Burdwan, PIN-713303.

9. That despite having no contact with the petitioners and never having resided together with the petitioners at any point of time either before or after the death of her husband, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Hirapur Police Station, on the basis of which Hirapur Police Station Case No.28 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015 under Sections 498A/406/325/307/376/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners and four others namely