IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 1560 of 2022 IA No. CRAN 7 of 2025 Mousumi Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & anr.

For the petitioner : Mr. Prodyut Banerjee Mr. Suvendu Bhattacharya Mr. Dhrubaraj Bhowmick Mr. Ankit Misra Ms. Seuli Banerjee For the state : Mr. Imran Ali Mr. Debjani Sahu Heard on : 16.06.2025 Judgment on : 23.06.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The accused/petitioner herein, who is the ex-wife of opposite party no.2/defacto complainant herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being Uttarpara Police Station Case no. 282/2020 dated 16.09.2020 corresponding to GR Case no. 1240 of 2020 presently pending before ld.

ACJM Searampore Hooghly.

2. Petitioners contention is that she was married with the opposite party No.2 on 17.01.2004 and due to such wedlock one female child and one male child were born. However, the girl child expired on 16.09.2005 and the male child had also expired on 19.11.2019. Petitioners further case is that it would be evident from the medical record that both the children were born with some severe deceases and for which they did not survive. Her further contention is that their matrimonial life was not peaceful and it got dissolved by way of a decree of mutual divorce on 13.11.2014.

3. Petitioners further case is that she had jointly purchased a flat under a registered deed of conveyance with one Mr. Ananta Roy (one of the witness of this case) on 07.03.2012. At a later point of time the petitioner transferred her 50% share in favour of said Ananta Roy by a deed of sale on 19.11.2013. The defacto complainant herein concealing the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, levelled an allegation of cheating and breach of trust with respect to the aforesaid sale of flat and superficially levelled an allegation that he (defacto complainant) had paid Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner at the time of purchases of the flat, which is a blatant lie because opposite party no.2 never paid any amount and in support of which, he could not furnish any document for aforesaid purported payment in favour of the petitioner. In fact the defacto complainant is playing hand and gloves with the aforesaid witness Ananata Roy and under his instigation and for some undisclosed consideration has lodged the instant false FIR against the petitioner, wherein it has been falsely alleged that the petitioner had cheated him with the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which he had purportedly given to the defacto complainant for purchasing the aforesaid flat.

4. The second limb of allegation levelled in the FIR is that defacto complainant received a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the petitioner for heart surgery of her son (since deceased) but said surgery was not done and the petitioner mis appropriated the said amount and for such rash and negligent act of the petitioner, their son died and for which the petitioner has also been booked in the instant case under section 304 A along with section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding petitioner contended that the petitioner jointly purchased the flat and being 50% owner of the said flat, she had every right to sale the same. Her further contention is that said registered deed of sale which is a public document was executed in the year 2013 and after expiry of about 7 years, present allegation has been lodged. The ground of such exorbitant delay in lodging FIR has not been explained anywhere and as such the proceeding is not maintainable and in this context she relied upon the judgment of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of Chattisgarh and another, reported in (2016) 7 SCR 154.

6. She further submitted that date of purported payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by the FIR maker in favour of petitioner was never disclosed nor the mode of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been specified anywhere. During investigation no document could be seized