Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the proceedings of S.C. Case No. 148 of 2014 (S.T. Case No. 02(1)15) under Sections 302/201/376/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Serampore, Hooghly including the orders dated 05.01.2014 and 31.03.2015.
(2.) FIR was lodged by the informant Smt. Uma Dutta wife of Arun Kumar Dutta of D -2nd Floor, R.G. Apartment, 22 R.G. Nagar Road, Hindmotor, P.S. Uttarpara, Hooghly against one named accused Bacchu Ghose to the effect that on 04.07.2014 the said Bacchu Ghose raped her daughter Moumita Dutta aged about 26 years and murdered her. It has been further alleged that the present petitioner deleted the call lists from their cell -phone and threatened the complainant not to lodge any complaint before the police. After investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the said Bacchu Ghose and the present petitioner. Thereafter on 05.01.2015 charge was framed against this petitioner under Section 201/120B/506 of the IPC. Thereafter the case was fixed for taking evidence. After the examination of two witnesses namely the de facto complainant Uma Dutta and her husband Arun Kumar Dutta as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively the Learned P.P. -in -Charge filed an application under Section 216(1) of Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charge against the present petitioner and the same was allowed on hearing both the sides permitting the prosecution to add Section 120B read with Sections 376/302/201 of the IPC against the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Deep Chaim Kabir, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the facts, stated in the FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. even after accepted as it is, do not constitute any offence of rape or murder against the present petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had threatened the de -facto complainant and her family members not to lodge a complaint and that he had deleted the call lists from their mobile phone. It has also been sought to be established by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner pressurized the de facto complainant and her husband to give out a false story that the victim suffered from a heart attack and/or fell from the roof of her house and that he was present in the nursing home and he tried to ensure that no postmortem would he held over the dead body of the deceased. Further it has been attempted to bring on record that some witnesses were threatened not to divulge anything against the petitioner. The Learned Advocate further submitted that a case has been registered and the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was also conducted. Therefore according to him, no ingredient of any offence far to speak of the offence of criminal conspiracy, rape or murder is made out against the present petitioner. He submitted yet further that although two witnesses namely de -facto complainant and her husband were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively but from their evidence no material regarding involving of the petitioner in the alleged offence as charged has transpired. Thus the institution of the criminal proceeding or its continuation against the present petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law and thus the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed. Mr. Manjit Singh, Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand argued that from the contents of the FIR and the case diary statements and also from the depositions of the witnesses already examined, specially from those of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the de facto complainant and her husband respectively, a prima facie case of conspiracy for commission of the alleged crime of rape and murder of the victim girl is made out also against the present petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the petitioner would be at liberty to raise defences available to him under the law in the Trial Court. His defence cannot be considered at this stage. He further contended that although while considering the application for quashing of the charge -sheet, the allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of investigation are required to be considered but truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of Trial Court.;