IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

CRR NO.3060 of 2022

SRI SUNITH KUMAR RAY

VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shataroop Purakayastha, Adv.,

Mr. Amitava Bhowmik, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Adv.,

Mr. Debanshu Ghorai, Adv.

For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arnab Sinha, Adv.,

Mr. Amartya Basu, Adv.

Last heard on : 11-12-2025. Judgement on : 11-12-2025. Uploaded on : 15-12-2025.

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. :-

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 for quashing of the proceedings pending in G. R. Case No.3033 of 2020 arising out of Baranagar Police Station Case No.206 of 2020 dated 03-06-2020 under Sections 498A/406/506/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code along

with the orders dated October 20, 2020 and October 25, 2021 whereby cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.

Brief Facts of the case

2. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the de-facto complainant and is a retired septuagenarian person. The son of the present petitioner, Abhiroop Roy, got married to the opposite party no.2/de-facto complainant on March 07, 2013 according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was registered on March 14, 2013 as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The de-facto complainant was a working lady who worked for Zensar in Pune for around two and a half years before marriage and after marriage; she left her place of work and joined her husband at USA who used to work at USA prior to marriage. The de-facto complainant in order to pursue her higher studies also went to USA and both the sons of the present petitioner and the de-facto complainant were leading their conjugal life in USA. They were also blessed with a baby boy on January 13, 2017.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on March 12, 2013, the son of the petitioner and the de-facto complainant went to the paternal house of the de- facto complainant and stayed there till about March 15, 2013. On March 17, 2013, the son of the present petitioner and the de-facto complainant travelled to Bangalore to reside together as husband and wife and they started to stay there in a rental flat. In the last week of May, 2013, the de-facto complaint came to Kolkata from Bangalore and stayed with the petitioner at his house for one day during which the de-facto complainant showed disrespectful behavior towards the present petitioner and his wife, that is, the accused no. 3. In the year 2018, the de-facto complainant came to Kolkata from USA for the first time after the birth of their son and that during her stay in Kolkata, the de- facto complainant came to the house of the petitioner for only about six hours to collect the gold and silver ornaments and other gifts given to the de-facto complaint and to the minor child. At that time, she allowed the present petitioner and his wife to meet their grandson for only a short duration. Thereafter though she spent extended days at her paternal house on request to her to bring her son to the petitioner’s house, she refused to do so. Thereafter, she returned with her minor child to USA. After that in the later part of 2018 and in the year 2019, the petitioner’s son became extremely perturbed and worried on suddenly unearthing that over past years, huge sums of money about more than 40 lakhs from his USA based accounts had been siphoned and had been transferred by the de-facto complainant to her personal account in India and to accounts of other unknown persons in India in collusion with the parents of the de-facto complainant. Accordingly, the son of petitioner asked her about the sum and to provide the details including the bank statement, but she refused to do so and became furious and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences including separating the son of the petitioner.

4. On September 30, 2019, the son of the petitioner and the de-facto complainant came back to