Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Jahanara Begum - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
CRR No. 2046 of 2019
Decided On : 09-06-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 306/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Investigation - prayer for changing the Investigating Agency- power of the learned Magistrate to direct “further investigation- Held, accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for Court monitored investigation. The first two modified reliefs claimed in the writ petition, if they were to be made by the accused themselves, the same would end up in being rejected. In the present case, the original writ petition was filed by the persons claiming to be the next friends of the concerned accused (A16 to A20) - Application deserves to be allowed as the accused themselves have chosen to approach this Court and also in the backdrop of the preliminary objection raised by the State that the writ petitioners were completely strangers to the offence under investigation and the writ petition at their instance was not maintainable. We would, therefore, assume that the writ petition is now pursued by the accused themselves and once they have become petitioners themselves, the question of next friend pursuing the remedy to espouse their cause cannot be countenanced. The next friend can continue to espouse the cause of the affected accused as long as the concerned accused is not in a position or incapacitated to take recourse to legal remedy and not otherwise - prayer for changing the Investigating Agency Abetment of suicide - Whether deceased had hanged himself or was he hanged by somebody else - Held, In present case from materials in case diary it is seen that it contains several statements of witnesses post mortem report FSL report etc - It is seen from the post mortem report that injuries on deceased led to conclusion that the deceased committed suicide - No poison was also detected in vicera - Witnesses have all stated that victim was unable to take torture (verbal abuse) by accused persons for his poverty and affair of his wife with accused and that as such he did not want to live - Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred in respect of S. C Case No.127 of 2018 pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bolpur, corresponding to Bolpur P.S. Case No.67/2018 dated 01.03.2018 and Charge sheet No.105/2018 there in under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's son Janarul Hasan alias Intaj was married to the opposite party no.2. Soon after his marriage, the petitioner found that the opposite party no. 2 used to dislike her son Janarul Hasan alias Intaj. The opposite party no.2 was also having an illicit relationship with the opposite party no.5, which was the reason for the marital discord between Janarul Hasan alias Intaj (the victim) and his wife, the opposite party no.2. Janarul Hasan alias Intaj had a business of selling fruits in a van. In absence of Janarul Hasan alias Intaj, the opposite party no.5 used to come to the petitioner’s house frequently, despite her objection.
3. That in the evening of February 28, 2018 at about 7.30 O'clock the opposite party no.2 told the petitioner that her daughter had called her to Darjipatti. Hearing this, the petitioner came to Bolpur crossing and met Janarul Hasan alias Intaj and asked him to return home immediately and after saying so the petitioner went to the house of her daughter at Darjipatti.
4. At about 12 to 12.30 a.m. that night, her elder son's wife Tumpa came to her daughter's place at Darjipatti and told her that Janarul Hasan alias Intaj was killed by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in a planned manner. Thereafter the petitioner reached the place of occurrence and found Janarul Hasan alias Intaj lying on the ground with blood on his neck as well as on the ground.
5. The Police came to the place of occurrence and took Janarul Hasan alias Intaj to the Hospital where he was declared, brought dead. The petitioner then lodged a written complaint with Bolpur Police Station against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 pursuant to which Bolpur P.S Case No.67/2018 dated 01.03.2018 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5.
6. The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet bearing No.105/2018 dated 29.05.2018 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5. It is submitted that the aforesaid charge sheet was filed while the opposite party no.5 was absconding and that the chemical examination report from the FSL had not even been received by the Investigating Officer as the same was submitted on October 3, 2018.
7. The petitioner states that the Investigating Agency has not conducted the investigation in a proper, fair and impartial manner. The investigating agency has set up a different case against the accused persons in such a manner that charge against the accused persons are diluted considerably. A closer look at the charge sheet would show that the investigation has been done in a motivated manner and no effort has been made to unearth the truth. The conduct of the police authority and the contents of the said charge sheet do not instill confidence in the intention and impartiality of the investigation agency.
8. Mr. Satadru Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is stated in the charge sheet that the victim Intaj had committed suicide and whereas the body of the victim was first seen lying on the ground. The position of the body indicates involvement of other persons in his death but no investigation has been done on this aspect.
9. There were deep nail marks on the neck of the victim and there was blood on his body as well as on the ground but no investigation whatsoever has been done on this aspect.
10. Tumpa Bibi, wife of the petitioner's elder son had seen Pinku Mia leaving the place of occurrence at around 12O'clock midnight but her statement was not recorded by the Police authorities.
11. The death of the victim was caused at
The magistrate has no power to order further investigation suo motu or on the request of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken and the accused person appears, nor does the magistrate ha....
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
The court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.
The court emphasized that further investigation must be justified by new evidence or deficiencies in the prior investigation, and the discretion to order it lies with the Magistrate based on case fac....
Further investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on facts of each case and in accordance with....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
