Smt. Indrani Sarkar vs Unknown on 12 April, 2017

1

708
AB
12.04.2017
Court 28 W. P. 9914 (W) of 2017

In the matter of : Smt. Indrani Sarkar

…Petitioner.

Mr. S. S. Mondal,
Mr. Soumajit Chatterjee …for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Chama Mukherjee,
Mr. Sandipan Pal …for the State.

Mr. Debabrata Chakraborty,
Mr. Debnarayan Patra,
Mr. Debasish Kundu …for the Prvt Resp. No.5.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is

the brother of one Santanu Ghosh who is the spouse of

private respondent no.5, Smt. Monima Ghosh.

It is the contention of the petitioner that her brother

Santanu Ghosh had suffered a brain stroke in 2005 and

is presently suffering from various ailments which has

had severe impact as to his mobility and other

activities.

It is the concern of the petitioner that private

respondent no.5 has failed and/or neglected to extend

proper and adequate medical facilities to the said

Santanu Ghosh and consequentially there is every
2

chance of loss of life.

It is, therefore, prayed that the custody of her

brother be handed over to the petitioner for better

medical treatment and/or management.

Learned lawyer appearing for the private respondent

no.5, however, submits that the instant writ petition

has been filed as a counterblast to a criminal case

registered against the petitioner by her under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code where she has been

alleged of perpetrating cruelty on the said private

respondent.

This, however, is hotly disputed by the learned

lawyer appearing for the petitioner who submits that

the allegations of cruelty are out and out false and that

READ  Ayyanar And Muniammal-vs-State Rep. By Sub Inspector Of on 10 August, 2006

the instant writ petition is filed in order to ensure the

basic human rights and medical attention of her

brother is preserved.

Learned lawyer appearing for the State-respondents

submits report wherefrom it appears that on the

complaint of the petitioner criminal proceeding being

Baruipur P.S. Case No. 641 dated 10.3.2017 under

Sections 341/325 of the Indian Penal Code has been

registered against private respondent no.5.
3

The report is taken on record. Copy of the said

report be handed over to the learned lawyer appearing

for the petitioner as well as private respondent no.5.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the brother

of the petitioner is sui juris and, therefore, prayer of the

petitioner for taking custody of her brother is not

maintainable in law. However, the concern of the

petitioner as to the health and wellbeing of her brother

is all but natural. It appears from the annexures to the

writ petition that medical treatment is being advanced

to the brother of the petitioner. That apart, learned

lawyer appearing for the private respondent no.5

submits that all possible medical treatment has been

extended to her husband.

Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing

the private respondent no.5 to render necessary medical

care and assistance to her husband Mr. Santanu Ghosh

in order to ensure his good health and peaceful living.

Criminal case registered against the private

respondent no.5 shall, however, continue in accordance

with law and be taken to its logical conclusion. Private

respondent no.5 shall be at liberty to raise all her just

READ  Namdeo Dashrath Shinde And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2007

defences in the said criminal proceeding in accordance
4

with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is

disposed of.

Since no affidavit has been called for, none of the

allegations shall be deemed to have been admitted by

the respondents.

Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying

with all necessary legal formalities.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
5

Leave a Comment

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