17.3.2025 sb CRR 1144 of 2023 With CRAN 1 of 2023 Sandip Ganguly & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sumit Routh …for the petitioners Mr. Arinjay Pal Mr. Ramit Mukherjee …for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mr. Koushik Kundu …for the State This application has been preferred seeking quashment of the impugned proceeding being Baduria Police Station case no. 75 of 2022 dated 10.2.2022 under Sections 498A/306/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Basirhat, North

24 parganas, corresponding to G.R. case no. 541 of 2022.

The opposite party no. 2 herein lodged a written complaint against the present petitioners who are husband, mother-in-law and married sister-in-law of the alleged victim, under Sections 498A/306/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and contended that the daughter of the complainant was married with the petitioner no. 1 and at the time of marriage, complainant gave cash and other valuable articles as dowry but after few days of her marriage, the daughter of the complainant was pressurized to bring more money and other articles as dowry from her parental house and on refusal, she was subjected to torture both physically and mentally by her husband and other in laws. It has been further alleged in the first information report that on 17.6.2018, the petitioners had driven out the complainant’s daughter from her matrimonial house and thereafter, she started to reside at her paternal house.

It is further alleged that on several occasions, complainant’s son-in-law i.e. petitioner no. 1 herein came to the house of the complainant and threatened her daughter with filthy languages and thereafter, suddenly the victim was not feeling well and then she was admitted in R.G. Kar Hospital, where she expired on 27.1.2022. In the first information report, it was alleged by the FIR maker that his daughter committed suicide due to unbearable torture by the husband of his daughter and her in laws.

However, after completion of investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC as the allegation of Section 306 or Section 406 of the IPC could not be substantiated during investigation.

Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding, the petitioners herein submit that it is clear from the post mortem report that the “Death was due to the effects of (feature suggestive of) hemorrhagic shock resulting from ruptured ectopic pregnancy”. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 was married with the victim lady on 2.6.2010 and in the complaint, no specific allegation attributed against the petitioners. The first information report made by the complainant, is improper and suppression of facts and most are untrue. The first information report is suffering from serious infirmities. The petitioners are no way involved with the alleged occurrence.

He further submits that after going through the FIR, it appears that it is comprising of two parts, the first part of the FIR is omnibus in nature without any specific allegation against any of the petitioners and the second part of the FIR in connection with the alleged occurrence dated 26.1.2022 by implicating the petitioners under Sections 306 of the IPC, has not been substantiated during investigation. Accordingly he prays for quashing of the impugned proceeding.

In this context, he relied upon some judgments in the case of:

i) Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

(Criminal Appeal no. 1674 of 2012).

ii) Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal no. 2379 of 2024).

iii) Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

iv) Preeti Gupta & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Another (Criminal Appeal no. 1512 of 2010).

v) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar &

Ors. (Criminal Appeal no. 195 of 2022).

Learned counsel for the private opposite party referred a judgment of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others