IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 2307 of 2023 MINATI MANDAL VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Subir Banerjee Ms. Sudeshna Maji Mr. Soumya Kanjilal …. for the petitioner Md. Wasim Akram Ms. Sabrina Parveen …for the private respondent Ms. Shalu Gupta …for the State HEARD ON : 28.09.2026 JUDGMENT ON : 28.09.2026 UPLOADED ON : 29.09.2026 (In Court) Ajay Kumar Gupta, J: - 1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the present petitioner challenging the impugned order dated April 12, 2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malda in 2 G.R. Case no. 127 of 2018 arising out of Mothabari PS Case no. 9 of 2018 dated January 10, 2018. 2. By the said impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying for further investigation after accepting the final report submitted as ‘Mistake of Fact’ vide Mothabari PS FRMF No. 536/2019 dated 27.12.2019 under sections 302/34 IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, alleging, inter alia, that on 15.10.2017 at about 12.00 hrs, the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant with sticks, pistols, hansua, etc., and demanded the complainant to produce his son, but when they did not get him, they rushed to the mango orchard at Chowdhury tola. The next day at about 04:00 hrs one Prafulla Mandal went to his cultivation land and found the complainant’s son, namely, Subodh Kumar Mandal, hanging from a tree at the mango orchard. He immediately informed the complainant of the matter. The complainant, together with others, rushed to the spot and found her son in such condition. She firmly believed that the accused persons murdered her son; as such, 3 she went to the police station, but no FIR was registered. Accordingly, she filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 4. On the basis of directions passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, an FIR being Mothabari PS case no. 09/2018 dated 10.01.2018 under Sections 302/34 of IPC was initiated against the 7 accused persons. 5. After culmination of investigation, the investigating officer finally submitted a Final report being Mothabari PS FRMF no. 536/2019 dated 27.12.2019 as ‘Mistake of facts’ under Sections 302/34 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate. After filing the final report, the de facto complainant appeared and filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C seeking further investigation on the ground that the investigation has been conducted without proper investigation and submitted the same in a perfunctory manner but the same was rejected. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the complainant filed this revisional application seeking relief as aforesaid. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the final report was submitted by the investigating officer in 4 mechanical and perfunctory manner. The investigation was not properly done. There were several injuries found on the person of the deceased. Apart from that, just a day prior to his death, the accused persons had threatened to kill him. Therefore, the order of rejection for further investigation passed by the Trial Court is required to be set aside, with a direction for further investigation. He further draws the attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. During investigation, some of the witnesses specifically stated that prior to the incident, some accused persons threatened to kill him. Those statements are vital and sufficient to allow such prayer for further investigation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/accused persons, on the other hand, raised the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the de facto complainant claimed that there were several injuries seen on the dead body found in a hanging condition at the mango orchard but such facts are not substantiated by any materials collected during investigation. 8. It is submitted that during investigation, the post-mortem was conducted wherein the autopsy Doctor opined, “Death was due to the 5 effects of hanging as noted above- ante mortem in nature.”There were no other external injuries found on the body of the deceased. Furthermore, there was a criminal case pending against the deceased under Section 4 of the POCSO Act with an allegation that he committed rape upon one victim girl prior to his death. The said case was registered against the deceased person on 14th October, 2017 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and for that reason he might have committed suicide. Therefore, there is no merit in the present case. The revisional application is liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produces the case diary as well as the memo of evidence and draws attention to this Court the post-mortem report as well as the scientific report as well as statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. During investigation, some of the witnesses have said about the threat to kill him; some of the witnesses said nothing about the threat even so, the de facto complainant has not registered any complaint against them, nor filed any application before the appropriate authority. 10. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record and memo of evidence, particularly, 161 Statements, post mortem report 6 and scientific report dated 27.05.2019 as submitted by Dr. S. Banerjee, Senior Scientific Officer, (Toxicologist) FSL, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata. It appears that no external injuries and scratch marks were found, save and except a ligature mark on his neck. Furthermore, the scientific report indicates that “poison could not be detected in the viscera of the deceased Subodh Mandal”. 11. It further appears from the record that, before initiation of the proceedings under Section 156(3), the de facto complainant did not comply with the provisions as stipulated under Section 154(1) and 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In the case of Ranjit Singh Bath v. Union Territory Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no. 4313 of 2024 the Hon’ble Court held that before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., he/she must exhaust all remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3), but that was not done prior to filing of the complaint and the learned jurisdictional Magistrate did not consider the said facts while allowing such complaint. 12. There are inconsistencies and dichotomies in FIR and materials collected during investigation. Furthermore, no direct or indirect materials are found against the accused persons. 7 13. In the light of aforesaid discussion and also in view of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, the case of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. Consequently, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings. 14. Accordingly, CRR 2307 of 2023 stands dismissed. 15. Consequently, the pending applications, if any, are, thus, disposed of. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Let the copy of this judgment be communicated to the Ld. Court below for information. 18. All parties shall act in terms of the copy of this judgment downloaded from the official website of this court. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties taking all legal formalities. 20. C.D. be returned. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) Amalranjan