MOUSUMI DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/petitioner herein, who is the ex-wife of opposite party no.2/defacto complainant herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being Uttarpara Police Station Case no. 282/2020 dtd. 16/9/2020 corresponding to GR Case no. 1240 of 2020 presently pending before ld. ACJM Searampore Hooghly.

(2.) Petitioners contention is that she was married with the opposite party No.2 on 17/1/2004 and due to such wedlock one female child and one male child were born. However, the girl child expired on 16/9/2005 and the male child had also expired on 19/11/2019. Petitioners further case is that it would be evident from the medical record that both the children were born with some severe deceases and for which they did not survive. Her further contention is that their matrimonial life was not peaceful and it got dissolved by way of a decree of mutual divorce on 13/11/2014.

(3.) Petitioners further case is that she had jointly purchased a flat under a registered deed of conveyance with one Mr. Ananta Roy (one of the witness of this case) on 7/3/2012. At a later point of time the petitioner transferred her 50% share in favour of said Ananta Roy by a deed of sale on 19/11/2013. The defacto complainant herein concealing the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, levelled an allegation of cheating and breach of trust with respect to the aforesaid sale of flat and superficially levelled an allegation that he (defacto complainant) had paid Rs.10,00,000.00 to the petitioner at the time of purchases of the flat, which is a blatant lie because opposite party no.2 never paid any amount and in support of which, he could not furnish any document for aforesaid purported payment in favour of the petitioner. In fact the defacto complainant is playing hand and gloves with the aforesaid witness Ananata Roy and under his instigation and for some undisclosed consideration has lodged the instant false FIR against the petitioner, wherein it has been falsely alleged that the petitioner had cheated him with the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 which he had purportedly given to the defacto complainant for purchasing the aforesaid flat.