Libertatem Magazine

Investigation Is an Interfering Subject to a Strong Criminal Case Revealing Palpable Illegality in Its Institution: Calcutta High Court

Contents of this Page

The Calcutta High Court on 27th January 2021, refused to quash the impugned First Information Report, lodged at Kalighat Police Station being Case No.94 of 2020 giving rise to proceedings, registered as GCR Case No.2304 of 2020, in an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 

Facts of the case:

The Petitioner moved an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned First Information Report. It was alleged that the petitioner was one of the perpetrators of a deep-rooted conspiracy. As a consequence, the petitioner with other co-accused persons duped the de facto complainant and thereby inducing the de facto complainant to get married to a lady upon making a false presentation of such lady to be a divorcee. A forged Court document of a mutual divorce to a woman, other than the lady, with whom the de facto complainant was made to marry, was procured before the de facto complainant

Further, an advertisement was published in a Bengali daily newspaper, where the prime accused was allegedly mentioned as a divorcee wife, and upon being attracted by such advertisement, when the negotiation for marriage was followed, the petitioner projected his stand claiming himself to be the brother of a sister divorcee (prime accused) and the de facto complainant fell a victim of cheating.

Petitioner’s arguments:

Learned Advocate for the petitioner challenged the First Information Report, now pending investigation, alleging the pending criminal prosecution to be counterproductive of a matrimonial suit already lodged against the de facto complainant and thus purposive one and harassive also. 

Further, it was contended that the petitioner proposed quashing the F.I.R. pending investigation was not the principal accused, and no offense could be said to have been committed furnishing the ingredients of the offense, against the instant petitioner. Moreover, the de facto complainant got himself previously married on the date of marriage as shown in the complaint.

Respondent’s arguments:

Learned Advocate for the State contended that the petitioner assisted the principal accused in hatching up the alleged conspiracy leading to the procurement of a forged Court document granting divorce in the name of parties, other than the principal accused. In such a deep-rooted conspiracy, the petitioner is alleged to have made a significant contribution, when the negotiation for the marriage of the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2 was held, and in course of negotiation for marriage, the petitioner presented himself to be the brother of the prime accused (divorced sister).

Further, Learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had already rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the nature and extent of the fraud in consequence of a deep-rooted conspiracy. Further, if the proposed quashed was considered then the very purpose of the investigation will be frustrated causing huge prejudice and thus, the proposed quashed was sought for dismissal.

Court’s observations:

The Hon’ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta remarked that purported divorce decree presented in course of negotiation for marriage standing in the name of Partha Chatterjee and Sikha Biswas (prime accused), dated 27th January 2014 relatable to Mat Suit No.113 of 2013, was turned out to be a fictitious document in course of the inquiry, which originally connected Mat Suit No.113 of 2013 dated 3rd February 2014, granting a divorce decree on mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act in the name of Kumaresh Mondal and Sucharita Mondal.

Further, it was laid down that the custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the nature and extent of fraud committed in this case as a consequence of a deep-rooted conspiracy and the pending investigation undertaken based on impugned F.I.R. does not call for any interference. Under the given circumstances, the pending investigation has its significance and individual potentiality, irrespective of the alleged institution of a case describing it to be counterproductive of a Matrimonial Suit pending against the de facto complainant.


The Hon’ble court ruled that the instant case is not an appropriate one in which the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code is necessary to be exercised and the prayer for proposed quashing is refused. 

Further, the revisional application accordingly stands dismissed and CD be made over forthwith. Furthermore, the Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court below without making any delay.

Click here to read full judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author