Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) QUASHING of proceeding in Lake police station case No. 276 of 2013 under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code has been prayed.
(2.) THE uncontroverted allegations in the first information report are as follows: The father of the petitioner was in her custody and that she prevented the de facto complainant (her brother in law) and his wife (sister of the petitioner) from meeting their father while he was admitted at K.P.C. Hospital. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipur, the de facto complainant and his wife saw the patient at the hospital on 4th April, 2013 in the presence of Special Officer appointed by the Court and the report of such Special Officer was filed before the said Court. During such interview, Madhumita found her father to be highly emotional. The Additional District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 12th April, 2013 accepted the status report filed by the special officer and directed as follows: " .... In the event of any eventuality regarding her father's condition she would inform the matter to the petitioner's wife (who is also the daughter of Mr. P.K. Chatterjee) by sending messages through the learned advocate of the petitioner or by any other means...." Admittedly the father of the petitioner expired on 19th May, 2013. In spite of such direction, the petitioner did not intimate the learned counsel of the de facto complainant and his wife by sending message or by any other means. On the other hand she cremated the dead body of their father and thereafter on the next day intimated the factum of demise of their father to the de facto complainant and his wife by filing a petition before the learned Magistrate. Such facts were brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by order dated 12th June, 2013 the learned Judge observed that prima facie offence by way of dishonest concealment of factum of death was disclosed. Accordingly, the first information report was registered in the instant case.
(3.) MR . Imam, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code are not disclosed as the factum of death was communicated on the very next date before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. He has submitted that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner to withhold the information of death and such fact is evident as no articles of the deceased were removed. He accordingly prayed for quashing of the impugned proceeding.;