IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH JALPAIGURI
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Smt. Rekha Sarkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
CRR 95 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306/34 –Abetment of suicide - Revision - Second charge-sheet/supplementary charge-sheet – Challenged – Held, neither accused nor complainant is entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be interested – In present case this court finds that materials on record vis a vis charge sheet proves that investigation has been conducted in a fair manner and is prima facie not malafide and thus charge sheets filed are in accordance with law – Accordingly cognizance taken is also in accordance with law – There is thus no scope for interference in respect of order under revision – Any further indulgence shown to petitioner/complainant would clearly amount to an abuse of process of court and law and also be against interest of justice – CRR dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for setting aside of the Order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in connection with G.R Case No.2264 of 2020 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.351 of 2020 dated 03.06.2020 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereby the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri after perusing the impugned second charge-sheet/supplementary charge-sheet being numbered as C/S No.122/22 dated 24.03.2022 filed on 12.04.2022 has fixed 06.05.2022 for appearance and commitment of the accused persons.
2. The petitioner’s case is that six years back her only son Arindam Sarkar now deceased married Manjushree Adhikari (Sarkar) at Sevoke Kalimandir, Siliguri and they had one daughter out of their wedlock.
3. That soon after the marriage the son of the petitioner came to know that accused Manjushree Adhikari (Sarkar) was previously married to one Tutu Adhikari, the fact of which was hidden from the petitioner’s son.
4. That her son Arindam Sarkar informed the petitioner that accused Manjushree Adhikari has not obtained any decree of Divorce from any court of law.
5. That soon after the marriage her son Arindam Sarkar (now deceased) together with accused Manjushree lived in a rented house at Pandapara, Jalpaiguri. The petitioner was informed by her son and by other people that one Biswaroop Roy, son of Gourango Roy of Newtown-para, Jalpaiguri, the accused no.2 used to frequently visit accused Manjushree Adhikari in his absence. There were frequent quarrels between her (deceased) son and the accuseds Manjushree and Biswaroop as Manjushree was having an affair with Biswaroop Roy and the intensity of his visits had increased and that both Manjushree and Biswaroop used to torture the deceased (both physically and mentally).
6. On 06.05.2020 the petitioner came to know that her son Arindam Sarkar has consumed poison and was taken to Superspeciality Hospital, Jalpaiguri. The petitioner along with her daughter Babli Shome and son-in-law Subhamoy Shome rushed to the said Hospital and found her son fighting for his life. The authorities of Superspeciality Hospital referred her son to Siliguri North Bengal Medical College and Hospital but he was admitted at Neotia Getwel Healthcare Centre, Siliguri.
7. That during his treatment at Neotia, her son revealed that accuseds Manjushree and Biswaroop on 6.5.2020 at around 12:00 hours physically assaulted the petitioner’s son and forced him to consume poison. The petitioner came to know from her daughter that her son revealed the same before the doctors and nursing staffs of both Neotia Hospital, Siliguri and Jalpaiguri Superspeciality Hospital but the Police officials somehow neglected to record the dying declaration of her son.
8. Her son Arindam Sarkar died on 7.5.2020 and thereupon she lodged a complaint with the Kotwali Police Station. The Kotwali P.S. took cognizance of the above complaint and started Kotwali P.S. Case being No.351/2020 dated 03.06.2020.
9. Thereafter the petitioner on several occasion tried to contact the Investigating Officer LSI Choisang Lama, but she was kept in darkness.
10. Left with no alternative, on 13.10.2020, she filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and also with the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri for proper and fair investigation.
11. On 03.11.2020 the petitioner received a copy of a letter from office of the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri wherein the I.C., Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri was directed to investigate the said case and take necessary actions.
12. Since then no steps for fair and just investigation was taken up by Kotwali P.S.
13. On 9.12.2020 the petitioner came to know that Kotwali P.S has already filed Charge Sheet being No.518/2020 dated 28.07.2020.
14. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner was first taken to Superspeciality Hospital, Jalpaiguri and from there he was referred to
Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177
Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2018) 14 SCC 298
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police
Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home)
Common Cause v. Union of India
Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
E. Sivakumar Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92
Narender Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra
Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361
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 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....
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....
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....
The court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.
A Magistrate cannot order further investigation after charges are framed; this power exists only at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.