The court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly, in G.R. Case No. 1502 of 2019 arising out of Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 394 of 2019 dated 02.08.2019 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is the unfortunate father of Rik Bhattacharyya, since deceased, who died in a suspicious incident at the age of 12 years (a student to Class VI) on 01.06.2019.

3. That on 01.06.2019 the said son of the petitioner was stated to have drowned in the River Ganges. As soon as the body of his son was recovered from the river, he was admitted to Kamala Roy Hospital by Sourav Mondal (Vicky) and thereafter admitted to Uttarpara State General Hospital by the petitioner himself, where he was declared ‘brought dead’. The petitioner has reasons to believe that two of the friends of the victim, namely, Anuvab Mete (son of Shib Charan Mete, resident of 96, Radha Gobindo Nagar, Hind Motor, P.S. Uttarpara) and Emon Banerjee (son of Subrata Banerjee, resident of 33, Dr. K.K. Ghosh Road, Bhadrakali, P.S. Uttarpara) played a role in the death of the victim. It is further stated that the said son of the petitioner had no idea as to swimming far off to speak about river swimming.

4. Subsequently the petitioner got further information from his wife that on 01.06.2019 at about 5.15 p.m. the said Anuvab Mete called the victim at his house and took him out of the house. At around 6 p.m. one of the labourers of a local cycle repairing shop informed the petitioner that the victim had falled into the river and at the time of the incident, he was accompanied by the said Anuvab Mete. On enquiry, the said Anuvab Mete informed the petitioner that they were bathing in the river and wondered what made the victim swim deep into the river. Upon hearing such concern expressed by the said Anuvab Mete, suspicions flickered in the petitioner’s mind since he knew that his son did not know how to swim. Thereafter the petitioner rushed to the river side and came to know that one Sourav Mondal recovered the body of the victim from the river.

5. The petitioner had requested the Officer-in-Charge of Uttarpara Police Station for lodging an FIR in respect of Uttarpara Police Station UD case No. 95 of 2019 dated 1.6.2019, but no step was taken in that regard by the said police station.

6. The petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a result whereof a First Information Report was lodged by the concerned police station.

7. Pursuant to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, HQ & SPIO, Chandannagore Police Commissionerate, by his letter dated 15.11.2019 intimated the petitioner that no magisterial inquest was conducted with regard to the said Uttarpara P.S. UD Case No. 95/2019 and that no requisition was sent for initiating magisterial inquest in connection with the unnatural death of the only son of the petitioner.

8. During the pendency of a writ application filed by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court being W.P.A. No. 4312 of 2020 concerning the investigation, the investigating agency submitted a final report in the case being F.R.M.E. No. 216 of 2020 dated 10.7.2020.

9. The petitioner approached the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore and filed a ‘narazi petition’ challenging the said final report dated 10.07.2020.

10. By an order dated 03.04.2021 the Learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order, inter alia, directing further investigation by another competent officer of Uttarpara Police Station except the previous investigating officer.

11. That even after passing of the said order dated 03.4.2021, the investigating agency failed to make any further investigation in the case. In such circumstances, as advised, the petitioner obtained a report from one Dr. Ajay K