SRI HEMANTA MONDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners have approached for quashing of the charge-sheet submitted against them under Sections 498A/306/406/34 of the Indian Peal Code on the ground, the evidentiary materials collected by the police during the investigation no offence has been made out and on the further ground admittedly, the FIR was lodged by mistake of facts. It may be noted that initially the petitioner moved for quashing of the FIR and thereafter by filing a supplementary affidavit made the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet which was submitted in the meantime.

(2.) Mr. Anil Chattopadhyay, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently urged before this Court there is no materials justifying submission of the charge-sheet for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, when according to the Autopsy Surgeon, the death was accidental in nature. He further submitted in view of the fact the defacto-complainant by filing an affidavit submitted before this Court that he is no more desirous to proceed with the criminal case instituted at his behest the impugned charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Mr. Debobrata Roy, the Learned Counsel for the State produced the Case Diary and vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing. He submitted there are gallon of evidence to show that during her lifetime she was regularly subjected to cruelty by the accused persons because she objected against her husband for maintaining an extra-marital affairs with his sister-inlaw. She further submitted soon before her death she was physically assaulted by the accused persons as she protested against her husbands relations with his sister-in-law. Mr. Roy draws the attention of the Court to the 161 statement of the witnesses, who are happened to be the neighbouring people as well as the tenants in the said house. He further submitted that the opinion of the doctor is not conclusive and is subject to the judicial scrutiny.

(3.) It may further be noted that the defacto-complainant of the case also appeared before this Court being represented by his Learned Lawyer and by filing an affidavit supporting the stand of the accused/petitioner and consented for quashing of the impugned proceedings. In his affidavit it has been inter alia contended as follows;