LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-151

MINATI SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On February 14, 2020
MINATI SARKAR Appellant
V/S
State Of West Bengal And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application challenging an order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in GR Case No. 331/2013 arising out of Garfa Police Station Case No. 21 dated 12.01.2013 under Sections 380, 406, 461 of the Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner appeared in person and submitted as follows. On 12.01.2013 the petitioner lodged a First Information Report alleging that she had earlier handed over the keys of her house to the accused Janardan Chakraborty, a local priest, to look after the property, but came back to find that the house was trespassed and all the jewellery and household articles were stolen away. The police did not take the complainant seriously. Upon her strong insistence, they came, inspected the place and without seizing anything, registered a First Information Report only under Section 406 of the Penal Code. Upon her further persuasion, Section 380 of the Penal Code was added to the charges. At the behest of a Superior Officer, some articles were seized from the petitioner's house. Without conducting proper investigation, a report in final form was submitted by the Investigating Officer seeking discharge of the accused. In the meantime, the accused had been giving threats to the petitioner to withdraw the case. Accordingly, she filed some GD entries with the police. During investigation no recovery had been effected. Even the husband of the present petitioner was not examined by the police. The petitioner filed a protest petition, which was allowed. During further investigation, the second Investigating Officer seized an almirah. However, even after the subsequent investigation, another similar final report was submitted seeking discharge of the accused. The petitioner filed a second protest petition. Instead of directing another further investigation, the Learned Magistrate treated the protest petition as a petition of complaint and started a complaint case on the basis of the same. The Learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that without further investigation, the real truth could not be unearthed.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State relied on the case diary and submitted as follows. The petitioner/de facto complainant had from the beginning tried to dictate the police about how to investigate. While lodging the First Information Report, her allegation was against the accused Janardan Chakraborty, a priest, to whom she had allegedly deposited her house keys. After a few days, she came up with another allegation and this time implicated one Ujjal Guha, a neighbour, in the case alleging that the said Ujjal had instigated the original accused Janardan to commit such crime. She did not stop at this. Subsequently, during the further investigation the petitioner tried to implicate her in-laws in the present case. During investigation it has been found that the petitioner had disputes and civil litigations with several persons. In fact, the statement of an independent witness gave out a different story about the main accused and a subsequent souring of relation with the petitioner. There was also a prior bad blood between the said Ujjal Guha and the petitioner as well as between the petitioner and her in-laws. No cogent materials could be found that would link the said Ujjal or the said in-laws with the commission of the alleged crimes. The Investigating Agency recorded statements of several witnesses including those of neighbours who could have thrown any light on the alleged incident. But, no one supported the allegations of the de facto complainant except her husband and daughter, who only gave out what they suspected. The accused Janardan was taken into police custody. But, nothing could be recovered from him or from his house after search. There is no material whatsoever to show that the purported accused committed any offence as alleged by the petitioner. The filing of the second final report was completely justified. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been given an opportunity to prove her allegations in a complaint case.