A.K.Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) In the present application under section 482 Cr. PC the petitioners who are parents-in-law of deceased housewife have prayed for quashing the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 398 of 1997 arising out of Alipurduar P.S. Case No. 141 of 1997 dated 01.06.1997 under sections 498A/494/306 IPC. against them.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the above application are that a complaint was lodged by one Tushar Kanti Banerjee at Alipurduar P.S. alleging that Munmun Pal, daughter of Sri Ramendra Pal was married with the petitioner's son Goutam Sarkar @ Laltu about twenty-one years back and in that wedlock two children, aged about sixteen years and thirteen years, were born. The said Goutam fell in love with maidservant Mani and ultimately married her. Both of them started torture upon Munmun whose dead body was recovered from the roof. It was suspected that over the issue of said second marriage, there was a quarrel between Munmun and her husband and thereafter her husband and second wife i.e. maidservant tortured her physically and mentally and she was driven to commit suicide. Though the petitioners are not named in the FIR nor is there any whisper about their involvement in the case, the police was trying to secure their arrest, for which they obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court on 15.07.97. They used to reside separately and did not maintain any relation even with their son due to his illegal activities and illicit relation with the maidservant. On the date of incident on 30.05.97 they were in the house of their daughter at Guwahati. Assam and they boarded the train there on 01.06.97 at 7.00 a.m. The forwarding report dated 02.06.97 of Goutam Sarkar speaks of seizure of a suicidal note of the victim lady by police that she committed suicide due to torture by her husband and maidservant Mani which thus does not indicate of any involvement of the petitioners with the alleged offence.
(3.) Mr. Sandip Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioners, on referring to the FIR, order of anticipatory bail granted by this Court, forwarding report of Goutam Sarkar and two train tickets contended that though his clients are not named in the FIR nor is there any material indicating their involvement with the alleged offence and on the date of incident on 30.05.1997, they were at the house of their daughter at Guwahati, Assam wherefrom they boarded train on the following date i.e. 01.06.97, the police tried to secure arrest, for which they have been compelled bring the present proceeding. Mr. Barin Roy, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, on referring to the charge sheet and final order after trial challenged the maintainability of the present proceeding contending that though the petitioners were not named in the FIR, during investigation their names transpired for which they including their son and his alleged second wife Mani were charge-sheeted, but the trial ended in acquittal of the present petitioners, and so when no proceeding is now pending against them, the question of quashing the same does not arise.;