Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 280 (CAL)

TARAK SINGHA ROY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2016-03-17

JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. RE : C.R.A.N. 4425 of 2015 1. The petition has been filed after 61 days. Upon considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and bring satisfied with the cause shown by the petitioner in preferring the application, I condone the delay in filing the application. The application is taken on record. The application being C.R.A.N. 4425 of 2015 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. Order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly in C.R. Case No. 550/2015 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for sending the petition of complaint of the petitioner for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been assailed. 3. One Smt. Dipika Singha Ray, was married to Falguni Singha Roy on 10.05.2009 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. On 29.06.2014 she set herself on fire at her matrimonial home resulting in her death. Over the death of Dipika, her father Dasarath Singha Ray lodged a criminal case being Serampore P.S. Case No. 344/14 dated 30.06.2014 against the husband, Falguni Singha Roy and other in-laws including the petitioner under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that Dipika was subjected to mental and physical torture over the demands of dowry and consequentially she committed suicide. Petitioner was arrested along with other accused persons in connection with this case and subsequently were released on bail on 10.10.2014. It appears that other criminal cases have also been lodged against the Falguni and the in-laws by the relations of the victims. Belatedly, on or about June, 2015 the petitioner took out the instant application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampur, Hooghly alleging that due to ill-treatment and torture meted out by the parents and other relations of the victim the victim had committed suicide. On such allegation the petitioner prayed for registration of an F.I.R. against the added opposite parties herein under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Magistrate called for a report from the police authority in connection with such prayer. On such allegation the petitioner prayed for registration of an F.I.R. against the added opposite parties herein under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Magistrate called for a report from the police authority in connection with such prayer. Report was filed by the police authority on 30.06.2014 stating that already a criminal case has been registered over the death of the victim on the allegation of abetment of suicide by the husband and her in-laws including the petitioner herein. On such report, the learned Magistrate by order dated 16.07.2015 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Jana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate misdirected himself inasmuch as the instant application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is in the nature of a counter case and, therefore, the direction for investigation thereon ought not to have been rejected in view of the fact that an earlier criminal case was registered over the self-same incident. He further submitted that there were earlier reports lodged by the victim against the accused persons and hence the rejection of the prayer for investigation was illegal and denied access to justice to his client. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant application is a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner who is an accused in the earlier case to scuttle the investigation therein and was rightly rejected. He has further submitted that the uncontroverted allegations in the application taken as a whole do not disclose the ingredients of abetment of suicide as defined under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties I find that the over the death of the victim a criminal case being Serampore P.S. Case No. 344/14 under Section 498A/304B was registered against Falguni Singha Roy (Husband) and the in-laws including the petitioner. No doubt that the allegations in the present application under Section 156 (3) is in the nature of a counter case as argued by Mr. Jana, learned counsel for the petitioner, but such allegation must give rise to a reasonable suspicion of commission of a cognisable offence for the learned Magistrate to give a direction for investigation. No doubt that the allegations in the present application under Section 156 (3) is in the nature of a counter case as argued by Mr. Jana, learned counsel for the petitioner, but such allegation must give rise to a reasonable suspicion of commission of a cognisable offence for the learned Magistrate to give a direction for investigation. While entertaining an application under Section 156(3) praying for direction of registration of F.I.R. the learned Magistrate is not to act as a post office or in a mechanical manner. Although the learned Magistrate is not required to apply his mind to take cognizance of the offence, alleged in an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is however, the duty of the Magistrate to see as to whether such allegations give rise to a reasonable suspicion as to commission of a cognisable offence. 8. I have examined the averments in the applications under Sections 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In the said application apart from making vague and omnibus allegation that the accused persons therein being the parents and the other relations of the victim subjected to her mental and physical torture, there is no specific incident or overact attributed to them which would constitute an act of abetment in commission of suicide by the victim. Mere allegation of ill-treatment without anything more does not constitute an act of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. One cannot also lose sight of the fact that the allegations made by the petitioner do not attract presumption of Section 113(A) or 113(B) of the Evidence Act. A fanciful imagination of a person who is already an accused in the earlier criminal case over the death of a house wife cannot in my mind constitute the factual substratum of a reasonable suspicion of commission of an offence. 9. I have also gone through the previous complaints purportedly lodged by the victim. The said complaints were lodged in 2010-11 whereas the incident in 2015. I find from the allegations in the said complaint that there was a dispute between the father of the victim and her uncle over staying of ancestral property and on such account her uncle misbehaved with her and her in-laws. The said complaints were lodged in 2010-11 whereas the incident in 2015. I find from the allegations in the said complaint that there was a dispute between the father of the victim and her uncle over staying of ancestral property and on such account her uncle misbehaved with her and her in-laws. Even if such allegations are believed to be true, it is absurd to suggest that such conduct of her uncle way back in 2010 would justify the allegation on that her uncle and her parents are responsible for commission of her suicide in 2015. A patently fantastic story has been portrayed in the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. 10. Hence, for the reasons as aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. 11. The investigation in Serampore P.S. Case No. 344/14 shall continue in accordance with law. I make it clear that observations made by me are for the disposal of this petition and shall have no effect on the defences of the petitioner and other accused persons in the aforesaid criminal case.