Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 50 (CAL)

MAMONI BHAKAT v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-02-01

SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA

body2007
( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : this revisional application has been preferred under Section 482 of cr. P. C. praying for quashing of the proceeding of Nabadwip P. S. Case No. 118 (10) of 2004, as pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, nabadwip. ( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 2 submitted a written complaint to the 0/c, Nabadwip P. S. on 6. 10. 2004 stating therein that his daughter Shipra Bhakat, aged about. 19 years and who is a handicapped lady was called fay Raju Bhakat 5/6 months before, in his house and raped her. Due to this, Shipra Bhakat became pregnant. As accused Raju threatened shipra, so she could not disclose the matter earlier. In the meantime Raju assured Shipra that he would marry her. Two months after the incident, Raju took Shipra to one Manik Das, a quack of the village for the purpose of abortion. He administered some medicines to Shipra, but even thereafter the condition of Shipra became serious and as such, the de facto complainant informed the matter to the parents of Raju, who promised to give marriage of Raju with shipra. In the meantime Shipra was taken to a Nursing Home at Nabadwip by raju Bhakat and Manik Das and abortion took place. Over this issue, a Salish was called where Raju and his parents agreed that Raju would marry Shipra. But on 5. 10. 2004 Raju and his parents refused the proposal of marriage and as such, finding no other alternative, the de facto complainant lodged the complaint with the O/c, Nabadwip P. S. against Raju and others. ( 3 ) IN the basis of the said written complaint, Nabadwip P. S. case No. 118 (10) of 2004 was started. Case was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Raju Bhakat, Manik Das and Mamoni Bhakat, present petitioner, alleging commission of offence under section 376/420/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer recommended the discharge of parents of Raju Bhakat and such prayer was allowed by the Court below. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is nothing against her so far as the present case is concerned and as such the investigating authority was not at all justified in submitting the charge-sheet against her. The Investigating Officer recommended the discharge of parents of Raju Bhakat and such prayer was allowed by the Court below. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is nothing against her so far as the present case is concerned and as such the investigating authority was not at all justified in submitting the charge-sheet against her. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that as there is no prima facie material at all against the petitioner, so there cannot be any justification that the case should proceed against her. He further contended that further continuation of the proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such, it should be quashed. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the State submitted that in the Case Diary there are some statements implicating the present petitioner and as such, according to her, it is not a fit case where the prayer for quashing should be allowed. She has prayed for dismissal of the revisional application. ( 6 ) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. It appears that a criminal case was started at the instance of the opposite party No. 2 alleging therein that one Raju Bhakat committed rape on his daughter. In addition to that some allegations have been made against one manik Das as well as against the parents of the said Raju Bhakat. So far as the First Information Report is concerned, it will appear that there is no whisper about the present petitioner who is the sister of Raju Bhakat. Learned Advocate for the State pointed out some statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Cr. P. C. and submitted that some of the witnesses mentioned the name of the petitioner. But it appears from those statements that in fact there is a vague attempt to implicate the present petitioner in connection with this case. It is apparent from the F.. R. itself that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. It may be argued that the written complaint was submitted not by the victim girl but by her father and as such, there may be omission in mentioning the name of the petitioner. It is apparent from the F.. R. itself that there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. It may be argued that the written complaint was submitted not by the victim girl but by her father and as such, there may be omission in mentioning the name of the petitioner. But if we look into the copy of the 164 statements, as made by the victim girl herself, then it will appear that nowhere she has stated in her statement that this petitioner is also involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Under such circumstances, i have got no hesitation to hold that, there is no prima facie material for proceeding against the present petitioner Mamoni Bhakat is concerned. To my mind, further continuation of the case against the petitioner Mamoni Bhakat will be a sheer wastage of time and it will certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court if the said proceeding is allowed to be continued against her. As such, I have got no hesitation to hold that it is a fit case where the prayer for quashing should be allowed in respect of the petitioner Mamoni Bhakat. ( 7 ) IN the result the revisional application succeeds on contest. The criminal case being Nabadwip P. S. Case No. 118 (10) of 2004 dated 6. 10. 2004 (G. R. Case No. 114 of 2004) is quashed so far as present petitioner Mamoni bhakat is concerned. She be discharged. ( 8 ) SEND a copy of this judgment along with L. C. R. to the Court below at once for information and taking necessary action.