52 19.08.2026 Court No.09. (S.Mandi) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE CRR/98/2023 IA NO: CRAN/2/2023, CRAN/5/2025, CRAN/6/2025, CRAN/7/2026 In Re: - An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - And - In the matter of: - Deoraj Agarwal and Anr. ..…petitioners. Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Mr. Hillol Saha Podder, Ms. Madhumita Basak, Ms. Mousumi Das …for the petitioners. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP, Mr. Gobinda Ghosh, Mr. Debabrata Rai ….for the State 1. This revisional application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings in connection with GR Case No. 54 of 2019 arising out of Kurseong Police Station Case No. 45 of 2019 dated 14.03.2019 under Sections 498A/306/34 of IPC at the instance of two applicants namely Mr. Deoraj Agarwal, aged about 64 years and his wife Mrs. Sabitri Agarwal, aged about 64 years. 2. On 14.03.2019, an FIR was lodged before Kurseong Police Station on the allegation that the defacto complainant’s daughter was given marriage with one Barun Agarwal, son of both the applicants, on 21.01.2005 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Siliguri. Her daughter’s conjugal life was not peaceful and she was ill-treated, misbehaved, tortured both physically and mentally 2 with all kinds of abuses. On 19.10.2018, the daughter of the defacto complainant attempted to commit suicide and subsequently she died. The FIR was registered on 14.03.2019 and Kurseong P.S Case No. 45 of 2019 dated 14.03.2019 under Sections 498A/302/406/120B of IPC was started. On 01.07.2019, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498A/306 IPC against the son of the applicants after discharging the present applicants from the allegations. 30 witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet. One narazi petition was filed on 09.08.2019 against such discharge and the same was allowed on 20.11.2019. Subsequently, on 21.08.2021, the first supplementary charge- sheet was filed showing 38 charge-sheet witnesses and the present applicants were also not sent up for trial in that supplementary charge-sheet. The defacto complainant filed one narazi petition on 10.12.2021 but subsequently it was dismissed for ‘not pressing’ the same since he had already filed one writ proceedings before the Hon’ble Court being no. WPA/1106/2021 and by an order dated 15.09.2022, the Investigating Officer was directed to immediately submit a supplementary charge-sheet on the basis of the materials already available in the case diary. A compliance report was asked to be submitted by 16.09.2022. It appears that the I/O had complied with the said direction and filed second supplementary charge sheet showing the present applicants as accused. 3. Mr. Basu appearing for the applicants has submitted that while filing first charge-sheet, the concerned I/O examined 30 witnesses and in the first supplementary charge-sheet filed on 21.08.2021, it 3 is revealed that the concerned I/O had examined 8 witnesses more but none of the witnesses stated anything against the present applicants. In the second supplementary charge-sheet filed on 15.09.2022, there was addition of newly engaged Investigating Officer as a charge-sheet witness apart from 38 witnesses whose statements were already on record. However, the fact remains that without examining any other important witnesses, the second supplementary charge-sheet was filed on behalf of the concerned I/O hastily only to get protection from stricture of the Hon’ble Court. He has referred to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and has pointed out that not a single witness out of 8 witnesses examined during the first supplementary charge-sheet stated anything against the present petitioners. Mr. Basu has further pointed out that the Investigating Agency has failed to show that there was any ingredient of Section 306 IPC against the present petitioners. According to him, when there is no ingredient of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, there is no need for entangling these petitioners in the case. There is no mention of any overt act committed by the present petitioners in the alleged commission of the offences. 4. Learned Counsel has referred to several judgments in support of his contention. In Mariano Anto Bruno and Another Vs Inspector of Police (2023) 15 SCC 560, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to mention that vague and general allegations of harassment without positive action proximate to the occurrence do not sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC. It is also 4 submitted on behalf of the petitioners that general assertion of mistreatment across 14 years of marriage are legally insufficient to rope in the in-laws under Section 306 IPC. 5. In Geo Varghese Vs State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2021) Volume 19 SCC 144, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that mere allegations of harassment without direct/indirect act of incitement proximate to time of occurrence do not attract Section 306 IPC. 6. In Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that cruelty/harassment under Section 498A IPC alone without mens rea or active role in driving person to commit suicide is insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC. 7. In Arjunan Vs State reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that essential ingredients for offence under Section 306 IPC are abetment and intention to aid/instigate. Mere abusive language or demand for money without intention to drive the person to commit suicide does not constitute abetment. 8. Mr. Basu has submitted that in this regard the witnesses did not state anything against the petitioners nor had stated about any overt act of the petitioners. Mr. Basu has prayed for quashing of the relevant proceedings as aforesaid. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Gobinda Ghosh, has submitted that there are three independent witnesses. Dipika Chetri, the tutor of the victim’s daughter, was examined as CSW- 18, the maid servant, Laxmi Chetri, was examined by the I/O as 5 CSW-19 and Vijaya Agarwal, a friend of the victim, was examined as CSW-14. All the 3 independent witnesses have stated about the role of the present applicants being parents-in-law in committing the offence against the victim. 10. Mr. Ghosh has also drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of the victim’s parents and brother who have categorically stated about the role of the present applicants in committing the crime. Mr. Ghosh, has also submitted that the aforesaid 3 independent witnesses hinted about the torture upon the victim at the hands of the present applicants. All of them have disclosed about the infliction of torture upon the victim at the instance of the present applicants. However, from the said statements, it appears that CSW-18 and CSW-14 derived their knowledge of such torture at the instance of the present petitioners directly from the victim, whereas CSW-19 had seen the alleged torture upon the victim at the instance of the present petitioners. 11. Mr. Ghosh has submitted one judgment in support of his contention i.e. Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2015 Volume 11 SCC 260. 12. I have considered the materials on record and also the Case Diary. It appears that the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses are not specific so far as the present petitioners are concerned. Needless to mention, domestic wear and tear is common and natural in marital relation and the same cannot be said to be an abatement under Section 107 of 6 IPC, whenever an unnatural death of a house wife takes place. Section 107 of IPC is as follows:- Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 13. 13. I have examined all the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and I do not find any specific overt act was alleged against the present petitioners. In Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that to convict the petitioners under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there has to be not only clear mens rea to commit offence, but it also requires an active act or direct act which leads the deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push the deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. 14. In Geo Varghese (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that mere harassment of the deceased not sufficient in itself to constitute the offence of suicide, unless there is direct or indirect act, incitement to compel the commission of suicide. In para 32 of the above decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that the very element of the abetment must be present in the FIR. In the absence of element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code do not exist. 7 15. In Gurcharan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principle that to prove the offence of abetment as specified under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there is something on record to establish or show that the appellant had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind abetted the suicide of the deceased. 16. In M. Arjunan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code:- The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment :(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abatement to commit suicide are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 17. However, the learned State counsel has rightly pointed out that it is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. It is also laid down in the judgment of Taramani Parekh (supra) that for quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide 8 admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 18. After considering all aspects of the matter including the judgments and charge sheets filed in the above case, it appears from the first charge sheet that there are some materials against the present petitioners. The mother of the victim as well the independent witnesses have hinted out the alleged torture committed upon the victim at the instance of the present petitioners. Needless to say, the FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia of events. But if we peruse the FIR, we shall find that there is no allegation of commission of abetment of suicide from the side of the defacto complainant. In fact, the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 306 have not been laid down in the said FIR. The statements of the witnesses being nos. CSW 18, CSW 19 and CSW 14 do not give any clue as to why and how that the petitioners abetted the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in view of judgment Taramani Parakh (supra) it is found that the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not even broadly satisfied neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. The record shows that marriage between the victim and her husband took place fourteen years ago and they were blessed with two children. Domestic wear and tear may often occur in the matrimonial relationship and the same cannot partake the nature of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As the allegation of abetting suicide is not found in the four corners of the FIR nor in the statement of the witnesses relied upon by the 9 prosecution, the petitioners cannot be entangled with the commission of offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. As the important witnesses did not disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code during their statements before the Investigating Officer, to succeed in this case, the prosecution has to improve its case during trial which is not permissible under the law. It is already discussed above that matrimonial wear and tear cannot partake the nature of offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the prayer for quashing of the proceedings as stated above. Accordingly, this revisional application is allowed. The proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No. 54 of 2019 arising out of Kurseong Police Station Case No. 45 of 2019 is hereby quashed in respect of the two petitioners, namely, Mr. Deoraj Agarwal and Mrs. Sabitri Agarwal. 19. The criminal revisional application is, thus, allowed. 20. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)