Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 329 (CAL)

Mrinmoy Ranjan Sikder v. State of W. B

2024-02-12

SUBHENDU SAMANTA

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon in G.R. Case No. 53 of 2017 arising out of Gaighata Police Station Case No. 14 of 2017 dated 3.1.2017 under Sections 306/120B/34 of IPC, rejecting thereby the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation. 2. The brief fact of the case is that, the brother of the present petitioner namely Sanjay Sikdar was a Government employee, the present opposite party no. 2 is the wife of Sanjay Sikdar and 3 to 5 are the relatives of opposite party no. 2. The brother of the present petitioner, Late Sanjay Sikdar committed suicide on 28.11.2016 inside his house. On getting such information the petitioner rushed to the Gaighata and he was informed that a post-mortem examination is in-progress due to unnatural death of his brother. He attended the last ritual of his brother and noticed some unnatural behaviour on the part of the opposite party no. 2 to 5. After sometime he came to know that the present opposite party no. 2 to 5 abated his brother Sanjay Sikdar to commit suicide. Accordingly, he approached to the Gaighata Police Station to lodge a complaint and registered G.D. Entry No. 285 dated 5.12.2016. The police has taken no steps accordingly he filed a petition of complaint before the Court of Learned A.C.J.M, Bongaon on 9.1.2017 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C praying for direction upon the police to cause investigation treating the said compliance as FIR. Upon direction of Learned A.C.J.M, police has registered a Gaighata Police Station Case No. 14 of 2017 dated 3.1.2017 under Sections 306/120B/34 of IPC. 3. It is the allegation in the petition of complaint that the deceased Sanjay Sikdar used to stay at his ancestral house along with his family. Opposite party no. 2 to 5 used to inflict torture and also threatened late Sanjay Sikdar and snatched money from him. They forced late Sanjay Sikdar to avail loan from different concern and have siphoned all the money. There was meeting on 28.5.2016 at the house of the petitioner’s father where it was decided that the opposite party no. 3 would repay all the loans and the balance would be repaid by opposite party no. They forced late Sanjay Sikdar to avail loan from different concern and have siphoned all the money. There was meeting on 28.5.2016 at the house of the petitioner’s father where it was decided that the opposite party no. 3 would repay all the loans and the balance would be repaid by opposite party no. 2 but, in fact the opposite party did not repay the loan amount on contrary created pressure upon late Sanjay Sikdar to repay all the amounts. Sanjay Sikdar could not bear the torture of present opposite party no. 2 to 5 and committed suicide on 28.11.2016. It is the specific allegation against the present opposite parties that they have abated the Sanjay Sikdar to commit suicide. 4. Police has conducted investigation and after completion of investigation. They submitted Final Report on Mistake of Fact (FRMF) No. 352/217 dated 7.5.2017, therein praying for discharge of the accused opposite parties from the aforesaid case. 5. Being aggrieved by such investigation, the petitioner preferred a Naraji Petition before the Learned Court of A.C.J.M, Bongaon who upon perusal of the petition directed further investigation by the Investigating Agency. 6. The Investigating Agency after completion of second investigation submitted a report in the FRMF No. 205 of 2018 dated 5.3.2018 wherein I.O prayed for discharge of the accused opposite parties from the aforesaid case. 7. Being aggrieved by such further investigation, the present petitioner preferred another Naraji Petition before the Learned A.C.J.M, thereby praying for further investigation but the learned Magistrate vide Impugned Order dated 12.09.2018 has accepted the final report of the Investigating Agency and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation. Hence, this revision. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the investigation conducted by the police is perfunctory. The police is not interrogated the ocular witnesses in this case. The police only do the paper work sitting inside the Thana. He further argued that there was a specific allegation in the petition of complaint that deceased Sanjay Sikdar was forced by the opposite party to take loan due to a business of building materials. The alleged business was, actually looked into by the present opposite parties. For the purpose of that business, late Sanjay Sikdar had to take loan from the different authorities but the opposite parties has manage to siphoned the entire loan amount showing the show-called lost of business of building materials. The alleged business was, actually looked into by the present opposite parties. For the purpose of that business, late Sanjay Sikdar had to take loan from the different authorities but the opposite parties has manage to siphoned the entire loan amount showing the show-called lost of business of building materials. The police have not actually conducted investigation properly in respect of the business so carried on in the name of the present opposite parties. He further argued that the Learned Magistrate should have directed the Investigating Agency for further investigation. Accordingly, the Order passed by the Magistrate is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State produced the C.D. He argued that the case was initiated under Sections 306/120B/34 of IPC. The police have conducted the investigation of this case twice. During the course of investigation the police have collected several documents; police also recorded the statement of the available witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C and after going through the materials on record. It is the opinion of the police authority that no case is made out against the present opposite parties. 10. He further argued that the allegation of abatement of suicide against the present opposite parties has no materials in the entire C.D. It is the fact that there are several criminal cases pending between the parties. He further argued that the Impugned Order passed by the Learned Magistrate suffers no illegality so, it cannot be set aside. 11. Heard the learned advocate perused the petition of complaint; perused the C.D. so placed before the Court by the State. I have also perused the report of the police in the form of FRMF. It appears that during the course of investigation and after examining the witnesses, the I.O. has come to learn that late Sanjay Sikdar used to work at W.B Excise Departments as Upper Division Clerk. After his marriage, he started a business of building materials in the name of his wife (opposite party no. 2). The said business was maintained by one of his friend and thereafter his brother-in-law (opposite party no. 5). It has also come to learn to the police that at the time, the deceased took loan from his friends and local club. 2). The said business was maintained by one of his friend and thereafter his brother-in-law (opposite party no. 5). It has also come to learn to the police that at the time, the deceased took loan from his friends and local club. It has also come to the notice to the police that for the last one year the deceased Sanjay Sikdar was suffering from Sugar, Hypertension and different mental disease including depression. Thereafter, on 23.3.2016. He took sleeping pill with a view to commit suicide. However, he was treated at Apollo Hospital, Kolkata. There was meeting to paid up the loan of late Sanjay Sikdar and there were some promise from the opposite party to paid up the loan. However, the loans were not paid. Finally, on 28.11.2018 Sanjay Sikdar committed suicide by hanging at his 1st floor room. 12. This being the fact it appears to me that the deceased Sanjay Sikdar was under depression for the unpaid loans. The allegation of 306 IPC has some specific ingredients _______ “306. Abatement of Suicide- if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 10 years, and shall also be fine.” So, it is the sole ingredients of the offence u/s- 306 IPC, that there must be an abetment on behalf of the accused person to the victim to commit suicide. The materials goes to show that the business of building material was started by the deceased himself. IO has recorded the statements of available witnesses, they do not suggest anywhere that the opposite parties ever forced victim to commit suicide or abated victim to take his own life. 13. I have perused the Impugned Order passed by the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has gone through the police report including the C.D. It is the observation of the learned Magistrate that the report of the police is sufficient to accept the final report in the form of FRMF. 14. The Order of the learned Magistrate is a speaking Order. I find no justification to contradict the finding of the learned Magistrate. The Order impugned is not at all improper or irregular in the attending facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 15. Connected CRAN applications if pending, are also disposed of. I find no justification to contradict the finding of the learned Magistrate. The Order impugned is not at all improper or irregular in the attending facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 15. Connected CRAN applications if pending, are also disposed of. 16. Any Order of stay passed by this case during the pendency of the instant criminal revision is hereby vacated.