Criminal Procedure vs In Re : Dr. Muralidhar Mahato on 23 August, 2017

1

23.08.2017
Item No. 164

sdas

C.R.R. No. 2769 of 2017

In Re : An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.

And
In Re : Dr. Muralidhar Mahato ……. petitioner

Ms. Debjani Sengupta,
Mr. Abhra Mukherjee,
Ms. Julekha Khatun,
Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee
……. for the petitioner

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for quashing of the

proceeding in Sessions Case No. 254 of 2013/ Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2017

arising out of Santaldih Police Station Case No. 4 of 2012 dated 25th January,

2012 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Gist of the

allegations in the impugned prosecution is to the effect that the victim lady was

married to one Asit Mahato on 14th May, 2011 and it is alleged that the victim

was subjected to mental and physical torture by her husband and in-laws

including the petitioner. It is further alleged that due to such torture she left her

matrimonial home and took refuge at her parental home. Subsequently she was

brought back to her matrimonial home on 19th January, 2012. Thereafter, she

suffered burn injuries at the matrimonial home and succumbed to such injuries.

It has been argued that the petitioner is the uncle-in-law of the victim and did

not play any role at her matrimonial life. In fact, the petitioner used to reside at

a different premise owing to his employment.

2

I have considered the materials on record. Prima facie, there are

allegations that the accused persons including the petitioner subjected the

housewife to torture and she died at her matrimonial home due to burn injuries

within two years of her marriage. Extent of complicity of the petitioner in the

alleged offences is a question of fact which may be decided in the course of trial.

In view of uncontroverted allegations in the impugned charge-sheet, I find no

reason to interfere with the matter at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to

raise all defences in the course of trial which needless to mention shall be

decided by the trial court independently on the basis of the evidence adduced

without being swayed by the observations made in this order or in the order

impugned.

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the

parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *