IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS. CRR 2355 OF 2023 IBHA DAS & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishan Roy, Adv. Mr. Souvik Das, Adv. Mr. Anamitra Banerje, Adv. Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. Akbar LAskar, Adv. Ms. Moupiya Chakraborty,Adv. For the State : Mr. Suman De, Adv. Mrs. Purnima Ghosh, Adv. Mrs. T. Rakshit, Adv. Last heard on : 05.03.2026 Judgement on : 09.06.2026 Uploaded on : 09.06.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.:- 1. The instant application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing of a proceeding pertaining to ACGR no. 1346/2023 pertaining to Patuli police Station no. 79 of 2023 dated 23.3.2023 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian penal code, 1860 pending before the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore. Fact of the case 2. The instant case was recorded on the basis of a letter of complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 alleging that on and before 21.3.2023 the present petitioner with her relatives in furtherance to their common intention engaged in financial dispute and thereby created mental pressure to the husband of the de facto complainant who committed suicide being unable to accept such pressure. It is the case of the petitioner that both petitioner no.1 and 2 are sexagenarian person and petitioner No. 3 is the daughter of petitioner no.1 and 2, is a Central Government employee working for gain at the Office of Commissioner of Central Tax GST and Central (Excise) under Howrah Commissionerate as a Tax Assistant.. The petitioner No. 4 is the husband of petitioner No. 3 and the son-in-law of petitioner no.1& 2 , is an Inspector, Backward Classes Welfare and Tribal Development presently posted as BDO Sahid Matangini , East Midnapore. It is further their case that the petitioner No. 2 are four brothers and one sister conjointly inherited an ancestral property and the piece and percel of land of about 7 cottahs situated Bagnan. The husband of opposite party No. 2 late Swapan Kumar Das was pressurizing the petitioner No. 2 since long to transfer the shares of the petitioner No. 2 in his favour and as he refused on 5.2.2023 at about 2 PM he and his son Soham Das forcefully entered in the house of the petitioners in an inebriated condition and started assaulting the petitioner No.2 & 4. The grandson of the petitioner No. 3 & 4 was also not spared and since she tried to save her child, was also abused and assaulted. At the intervention of the neighbors, the family of the petitioner was saved and because of such humiliation and assault the petitioner No. 2 had to be under constant medical treatment as his health deteriorated considerably. On the selfsame day the petitioner approached the local police authority for lodging first information report of aforementioned incidents but the police refused to register any complaint and subsequently petitioner No. 3 compelled to make representations to the superintendent of police, Howrah District and also to the Inspector in charge, Bagnan police Station. 3. On the basis of such complaints Bagnan Police Station Case No. 64 of 2023 dated 15.2.2023 under section 448/323/325/354/379/506/24 started against Soham and Swapan. After that the petitioners came to learn about the suicide committed by Swapan and a criminal case has been initiated falsely implicating them as an accused. It is the specific case that the instant criminal case has been initiated against the petitioners as a vengeful, vindictive and desperate ploy to implicate the petitioners in a false and frivolous and baseless criminal case. The entire allegations levelled against the present petitioner are entirely concocted having no materials and hence the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. Page 4 of 8 Submissions 4. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that only in order to harass the petitioners this complaint has been lodged where on the face of it no material can be found which can constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian penal code. The petitioners completely deny about receiving any such amount of ₹2 lakhs in the year 2008 and it is palpably clear that only to arraign the petitioner as accused the story has been created. It is further argued that even if the entire allegation is accepted for the sake of argument it would never constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian penal code as it failed to fulfil the required criteria under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision of Annakali Dutta & Ors vs State1, State of West Bengal versus Indrajit Kundu and others2, 2006 SCC Online Cal 53 Subha Narayan versus State of West Bengal, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P3 in this regard and accordingly prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding. 6. The learned Counsel representing the prosecution on the other hand argued that on completion of investigation the charge sheet has been submitted and prima facie sufficient materials are there which well established the allegations levelled against the petitioner and therefore the accused persons must face the trial. 1 1990 SCC online Cal 80 2 (2019) 10 SCC 188 3 (2002) 5 SCC 371 Analysis 7. Heard the submissions of the learned advocates. None appears to represent the opposite party no. 2 /defacto complainant. On careful perusal of the materials on record it is apparent that the deceased committed suicide and no external injuries was found excepting the ligature Mark on the neck. In this case the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306/34 IPC against the petitioners. It further appears from the case diary that during investigation the de facto complainant submitted a letter to the Officer in charge Patuli police Station expressing her desire to withdraw her complaint and close the investigation into the instant case. However since the charge sheet has been submitted the matter is pending before the learned 10th ADJ, Alipore. On close scrutiny of the written complaint it is seen that the allegation was levelled against the petitioners that Mohanlal –Das took loan of ₹ 2 lakhs from the father of the de facto complainant late Ranjeet Kumar Das in the year 2008 when the husband of the de facto complainant went to ask for that amount he was abused and assaulted by the petitioners and thereafter he committed suicide. 8. In the decision as relied upon in Annakali Dutta (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that from the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide after he was badly treated by the petitioner is a case of strong suspicion regarding commission of an offence under Section 306 of the penal code, 1860 cannot be said to have been made out against the petitioners unless there is evidence of incitement to end his life. Page 6 of 8 In the case of Subha Narayan (supra) it was held by the learned single bench of Calcutta High Court that “to constitute an offence under section 306 of IPC, it is not enough that the victim was subjected to some harassment or use to be criticised but something more than it is necessary. It is necessary to establish that the instigation was the proximate cause for commission of suicide”. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Indrajit Kundu and others (supra) where the judgement of Ramesh kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh4 was referred where it was held in paragraph 20; “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect on what constituted instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. ……” 10. In the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh (supra) also the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the ingredients of section 107 of Indian penal code and held “’instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic all in advisable action or stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that words uttered in a quarrel or on a spur of moment, such as “to go and die” cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. 4 (2001) 9 SCC 618 In the present case it is evident that there was a prior inimical relationship between the parties over their ancestral properties and a complaint was lodged by the present petitioner No.3 against the deceased and his son over which a case started and the charge sheet was submitted against them. The complaint itself failed to establish any primary ingredients in order to constitute an offence under section 306 of Indian penal code. That apart even if the entire complaint is accepted it will not attract section 306 IPC against the petitioners on the contrary it is an afterthought and an emotional outburst of the de facto complainant after losing her husband. 11. The power under Section 482 is to be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or for the sake of interest of justice. Therefore as it is found that the materials as disclosed and the contents of the complaint to not constitute an offence under section 306 of the Indian penal code and or for that matter there can be any justification for allowing the proceeding to continue ,therefore this court is of the opinion that in absence of prima facie materials or something more which can create doubt to implicate the petitioners in the allegations made under Section 306 IPC ,the continuation of the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court .Therefore in the best interest of justice in exercise of the power under Section 482 this court is inclined to quash the proceeding against the petitioners. Conclusion 12. Accordingly the present Revisional Application being C.R.R no.2355 of 2023 the allowed. All the connected applications if any stands disposed of. Page 8 of 8 13. The proceeding pending before the learned 10th ADJ Alipore, South 24 Parganas is hereby quashed. 14. The petitioners are discharged from their respective bail bond 15. Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, be provided to the parties upon observance of all necessary requirements. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]