The central legal point established is the requirement of evidence to establish abetment in cases of suicide, and the discretion of the magistrate in accepting final reports based on available evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon in G.R. Case No. 53 of 2017 arising out of Gaighata Police Station Case No. 14 of 2017 dated 3.1.2017 under Sections 306/120B/34 of IPC, rejecting thereby the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation.

2. The brief fact of the case is that, the brother of the present petitioner namely Sanjay Sikdar was a Government employee, the present opposite party no. 2 is the wife of Sanjay Sikdar and 3 to 5 are the relatives of opposite party no. 2. The brother of the present petitioner, Late Sanjay Sikdar committed suicide on 28.11.2016 inside his house. On getting such information the petitioner rushed to the Gaighata and he was informed that a post-mortem examination is in-progress due to unnatural death of his brother. He attended the last ritual of his brother and noticed some unnatural behaviour on the part of the opposite party no. 2 to 5. After sometime he came to know that the present opposite party no. 2 to 5 abated his brother Sanjay Sikdar to commit suicide. Accordingly, he approached to the Gaighata Police Station to lodge a complaint and registered G.D. Entry No. 285 dated 5.12.2016. The police has taken no steps accordingly he filed a petition of complaint before the Court of Learned A.C.J.M, Bongaon on 9.1.2017 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C praying for direction upon the police to cause investigation treating the said compliance as FIR. Upon direction of Learned A.C.J.M, police has registered a Gaighata Police Station Case No. 14 of 2017 dated 3.1.2017 under Sections 306/120B/34 of IPC.

3. It is the allegation in the petition of complaint that the deceased Sanjay Sikdar used to stay at his ancestral house along with his family. Opposite party no. 2 to 5 used to inflict torture and also threatened late Sanjay Sikdar and snatched money from him. They forced late Sanjay Sikdar to avail loan from different concern and have siphoned all the money. There was meeting on 28.5.2016 at the house of the petitioner’s father where it was decided that the opposite party no. 3 would repay all the loans and the balance would be repaid by opposite party no. 2 but, in fact the opposite party did not repay the loan amount on contrary created pressure upon late Sanjay Sikdar to repay all the amounts. Sanjay Sikdar could not bear the torture of present opposite party no. 2 to 5 and committed suicide on 28.11.2016. It is the specific allegation against the present opposite parties that they have abated the Sanjay Sikdar to commit suicide.

4. Police has conducted investigation and after completion of investigation. They submitted Final Report on Mistake of Fact (FRMF) No. 352/217 dated 7.5.2017, therein praying for discharge of the accused opposite parties from the aforesaid case.

5. Being aggrieved by such investigation, the petitioner preferred a Naraji Petition before the Learned Court of A.C.J.M, Bongaon who upon perusal of the petition directed further investigation by the Investigating Agency.

6. The Investigating Agency after completion of second investigation submitted a report in the FRMF No. 205 of 2018 dated 5.3.2018 wherein I.O prayed for discharge of the accused opposite parties from the aforesaid case.

7. Being aggrieved by such further investigation, the present petitioner preferred another Naraji Petition before the Learned A.C.J.M, thereby praying for further investigation but the learned Magistrate vide Impugned Order dated 12.09.2018 has accepted the final report of the Investigating Agency and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation. Hence, this revision.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the investigation conducted by the police is perfunctory. The police is not interrogated the ocular witnesses in this case. The police only do the paper work sitting inside the