IN RE: RATNAKAR BANDYAPADHYAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner/defacto complainant in connection with G.R. Case No. 789 of 2011 under Sections 279/ 304A of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed. The petitioner/defacto complainant lodged a written complaint on 03.08.2011 alleging that his son Daulat Bandyopadhyay went to his relative's house at about 5.00 p.m. While he was taking tea, Daulat received a telephone call. After receiving the telephone call, he stated to his mother that he would go to Bankura as Mukul's father was seriously ill. On being informed by him, his mother asked him not to go. However, Daulat went there with his car being No. WB -56D -7999. He stopped at Ladharka More at the tea -shop of Babua at about 8.30 p.m. At about 9.30 p.m., Daulat called his mother informing that he started for Bankura and had crossed Lalpur and he would return after admission of the patient. Thereafter, at midnight, he informed his mother that he would return in the early morning. On 7.7.2011 at 6.30 A.M. his mother made a call to him but his phone was switched off. At about 7.30 A.M., Daulat informed that the Doctor had not yet checked up the patient. At 10.30 A.M., the petitioner made a call to him and latter informed that he was returning at about 11.00 A.M. The petitioner again called him but could not connect. At that time, one Amrita Dey and Jayanta Banerjee informed the petitioner that Daulat's car had met with an accident and it had turned upside down near Gurda More. He also was informed that Mithun Gope, opposite party No. 2 herein, was also in the car and was injured and had been taken to Ladharka Primary Health Centre. Daulat was admitted in the Purulia Sadar Hospital where he subsequently expired.

(2.) ON the basis of such First Information Report, Hura P.S. Case No. 48 of 2011 dated 3.8.2011 under Sections 279/ 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown persons.

(3.) IN the Naraji petition, the petitioner has sought to implicate the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by stating that when he went to Purulia Sadar Hospital, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 prevented him from seeing his injured son. He further stated that he learnt from one Subrata Banerjee that there was incised injury on the body of the victim. After the Post Mortem was conducted, the petitioner found injuries on the head of the victim. He has stated that thereafter he has received threats from the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 herein.