District : South 24
Parganas.
In the Court of the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
Ref.
: Kasba Police Station Case no. 500 of 2016.
{
Under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code’ 1860
}
In
the matter of :
State
of West Bengal.
_____________Complainant.
Shri
Arabinda Prasad Bhattacharya.
_____Defacto
Complainant.
-
Versus –
NARAZI PETITION
Smt.
Mira Bhattacharjee, and others.
______________Accused.
The
humble petition of the above named Defacto Complainant Shri Arabinda Prasad
Bhattacharya, most respectfully;
Sheweth as under :
1.
That in the above referred case
matter, investigating Agency, submitted its report in Final form as FINAL
REPORT, being no. 109/17, dated 27-07-2017, and whereas the type of final
report has not been given.
2.
That the defacto complainant is not
agree with the Final report, as such the investigation has not been properly
conducted by the investigating agency, and submitted final report by doing desk
work, which cannot be said to be an investigation of a case matter.
3.
Under
the Code ‘investigation‟
consists, generally, of the following
steps: (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) Ascertainment of the facts and
circumstances of the case, (3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,
(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence, which may
consist of (a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and
the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b)
the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the
‘investigation’ and to be produced at the trial, and (5) information of the
opinion as to whether, on the material collected, there is a case to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial
and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of
charge-sheet under Section 173, of the code.
4.
That one Complaint has been lodged by
Shri Arabinda Prasad Bhattacharya, Son of Late Akshay Kumar Bhattacharya,
residing at Sarat Ghosh Garden Road, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 037,
District – South 24-Parganas, against the accused persons named therein, for
their alleged offences committed to be punishable under Section 420, 406, 467,
468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code’ 1860, before this Learned Court
vide Complaint Case being number 953 of 2016, with a prayer under Section
156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code’ 1973.
5.
That the FINAL REPORT, being no. 109/17,
dated 27-07-2017, has submitted with the following remarks by the Investigating
Officer :
“
During investigation it was learnt that when the complainant was in Bangladesh,
his brother Anil Baran Bhattacharya ( Since deceased ) had prepared a forged
gift deed and took the entire property in his name. from the Visa of the
complainant it is clear that when the gift deed was prepared the complainant
was in Bangladesh. It is also clear that the property of the complainant was
forged by his brother not by the FIR named accused persons. Anil Baran
Bhattacharya who is the main culprit is no more in the world. What the Anil
Baran Bhattacharya has done that is a Criminal Work. But he has expired. The
criminal liabilities does not lie upon others. Already the petitioner has filed
a Title Suit before the Learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Alipore Vide
Title Suit no. 121 of 2016, which is pending before the concern court. Under
order of Hon’ble High Court all the accused persons were given notice under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. to collect Original Deeds. But they failed to produce the
same”.
6.
That the defacto complainant / petitioner
states that the said Final Report has never been communicated to the defacto
complainant by the I.O. concern in any manner, whatsoever, the defacto complainant
came to know about the said Final Report, while he appeared before the Learned
Court, on the said occasions. The said final report has been submitted by the
I.O. , on the said occasions, the defacto complainant placed his one petition
praying therein for time to place his NARAZI Petition against such Final
Report, and whereas the Learned Court was pleased to allow such prayer of the
defacto complainant.
7.
That the defacto complainant /
petitioner furnished hereunder the facts and true story related to the death of
his only one male child of aged about 6 (six years ), and or reproduced his
contents of the petition of complaint, which has been made before the Learned
Court, once again, for the sake of kind perusal by the Learned Court :
a)
That your petitioner and his elder
brother Anil Baran Bhattacharya ( now deceased ), purchased a landed property
jointly situated at Mouza – Kasba, P.S. Kasba, District South 24 Parganas, R.S.
no. 233, Dag no. 4166, Khatian no. 1627, and 205, Touzi no. 145, J.L. no. 13, measuring
about 5 cottahs and 5 chattacks in 1972, by virtue of Deed of Conveyance
registered being no. 816 / 1972, on 15-03-1972, Volume no. 29, Page no. 52 to
59, at the office of the District Sub Registrar at Alipore and as such your
petitioner is the absolute 50% owner of the said property.
b)
That your petitioner is the lawful 50%
owner of the property situated at Mouza – Kasba, P.S. Kasba, District South 24
Parganas, R.S.N. 233, Dag no. 4166, Khatian no. 1627, and 205, measuring 5
cottahs and 5 chattacks.
c)
That your petitioner was the employee
of Bangladesh Govt. in law and justice Department and your petitioner retired
from his service on 21-02-2015.
d)
That before such retirement your
petitioner requested his said elder brother to arrange for partition of the
said joint property but he deferred the matter on difference flimsy pleas.
e)
That after retirement your petitioner
came to India in the year 2015 but in the mean time your petitioner’s said
elder brother died leaving behind his wife and two daughters namely Smt. Mira
Bhattacharya, Tania Bhattacharya, and Ranita Bhattacharya as his legal heirs
and successors.
f)
That after returning to India your
petitioner approached the said legal heirs of his elder brother and arrange for
settlement of the said property but they openly declared that entire property
already belong to the other persons.
g)
That your petitioner authorized about
such always of the legal heirs of your petitioner’s elder brother and after
knowing it your petitioner searched in different offices and came to know that
by forging your petitioner’s signature, thumb impression and photograph of your
petitioner the conspirators committed the aforesaid offences.
h)
That the said elder brother Anil Baran
Bhattacharya ( now deceased ) prepared a false, fabricated and forged DEED of
GIFT in favour of him producing a fake fictitious person before the registrar
unlawfully on behalf of your petitioner, who executed the gift deed by putting
your petitioner’s false signature, thumb impression and the photograph affixed
on the said deed of gift, which are not of your petitioner. Your petitioner
categorically deny the signature, thumb impression and the photograph to be of
your petitioner. Thereafter on the basis of the said forged deed of gift, the
said elder brother Anil Baran Bhattacharya ( now deceased ) along with his
legal heirs has prepared a false and fabricated power of attorney in favour of
accused no. 7, Sri Niwas Singh and made the registration of the property in
favour of the accused no. 4 to 6, without the knowledge and consent of your
petitioner.
i)
That the accused persons namely Mira
Bhattacharya, Tania Bhattacharya, Ranita Bhattacharyua and Sri Niwas Singh with
their conspiracy prepared forged deeds and registered the same and
misaapropriated the entire sale amount and the other accused persons knowing
fully well that the above named Anil Baran Bhattacharya ( now deceased ) is not
the absolute owner of the entire property they purchased the said property and
cheated your petitioner.
j)
That by preplanned way all the accused
persons including your petitioner’s said elder brother since deceased prepared
such false deeds taking the advantage of absence of your petitioner as at that
time your petitioner was engaged in his service at Bangladesh Govt.
k)
That your petitioner further submits
that the conspiracy for the forged Gift Deed was hatched behind the back of
your petitioner since your petitioner was not in India on the date of execution
of the false gift deed dated 11.11.09.
l)
That your petitioner informed the
matter to the O.C. Kasba, by a written complaint and informed it to the Dy.
Commissioner of Police, South Subarban Division ( SSD) Kolkata.
.
8.
That the defacto complainant / petitioner
states and submits that a fair investigation would include a complete
investigation. A complete investigation would mean an investigation, which
looks into all aspects of an accusation, be it in favour of the accused or
against him. Article 21, undoubtedly, would mean that every victim of offence
has the right to demand a fair trial meaning thereby that him or he has the
right to demand the state discharge its constitutional obligation to conduct a
fair investigation that the investigation culminates into fair trial.
9.
That the defacto complainant /
petitioner states and submits that after getting the purported copy of gift
deed dated 11.11.2009, and after going through the signatures, thumb impression
and photographs attested in the alleged deed of gift dated 11.11.2009, though
the signature, thumb impression and photographs of the complainant were forged.
On 11-11-2009, ther complainant was in official duty at the office of District
Judge Court, Noakhali, Bangladesh, and was never present at the office of
Additional Registrar of Assurance – I, Kolkata or never made any signature,
thumb impression and photographs which were enclosed in the deed of gift. The
alleged purported deed of gift was a manufactured and forged document wherein,
the forged signatures of the complainant were put and fake photographs was affixed
in the gift deed. It will transpire from the deed of gift dated 11.11.2009, the
two witnesses namely Shankar Acharjee and Sanjiv Burman but the local people
never knew the said persons in the locality.
10.
That the defacto complainant /
petitioner states and submits that The alleged violation of the above stated
principles is at the heart of the controversy in the present application,
wherein the defacto complainant is the un-fortunate father, whose son was put
to death by the accused persons and claim to have helplessly witnessed his son
being killed.
11.
That the defacto complainant /
petitioner states and submits that the investigating officer was not acting
impartially and in obedience to law is clear from the fact which has been
brought up in this application, before the Learned Court.
12.
That the defacto complainant / petitioner
states and submits that It
is, therefore, necessary for the Learned Court to determine as the facts
brought on record necessitated direction for re-investigation or further
investigation.
13.
That the defacto
complainant / petitioner states and submits that the present case is not a simple case of
lapses committed by the investigating officer; rather, the accusations are of
manipulation of investigation.
14.
That the defacto
complainant / petitioner states and submits that if an investigating officer is not
faithful, honest or truthful, while recording the statement of witnesses, and
conducting investigation in all aspects, then, such an investigation cannot
give rise to a fair Investigation, which culminates to a fair trial.
15.
That the defacto
complainant / petitioner states and submits that the present application, clearly reveal that there are, at
least, the contents and story which established mala fide and illegal
investigation by the investigating officer.
16.
That the defacto
complainant / petitioner states and submits that these facts are not mere lapses or
ignorance in conducting investigation; rather, these facts make out a
case of foul play and deliberate manipulation of investigation and suppression
of material facts, by the investigating officer.
17.
That the defacto
complainant / petitioner states and submits that since the present case is a clear case of
unfair investigation, it could have been rectified by further
investigation as well as by re-investigation. When further
investigation is possible, re-investigation shall not be directed.
18.
That the defacto
complainant / petitioner states and submits that the above admitted facts, as indicated above, clearly made
out a clear case of unfair and manipulated investigation, by the
investigating officer of this case.
19.
That the defacto complainant /
petitioner states and submits that the present I.O. submitted the Final Report
in such a manner, so that he can save the accused persons from the punishment
for the offences committed to be punishable under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, &
471, of the Indian Penal Code’ 1860 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code’ 1860.
20.
That the defacto complainant / petitioner
state and submits that in the facts and circumstances, petitioner’s seeking
re-investigation and or fresh investigation of the above referred case matter,
by the Joint Commissioner of Police, ( Crime ) Detective Department, of the
Kolkata Police, and or by the Additional Director and Inspector General of
Police, C.I.D., West Bengal, in the interest of administration of justice.
21.
That the defacto complainant / Petitioner state and submits that unless
the re-investigation directed by the Learned Court in the above referred case
matter, the Petitioner will be highly prejudice to get faire justice and suffer
with highly irreparable loss and injury.
22.
That this application is made bonafide in the
interest of administration of justice.
In
the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is prays that your Honour would
be graciously pleased to pass the
following order or orders :
a)
To
allow this application of the defacto complainant / petitioner, in the interest
of fair administration of justice; and or ;
b)
to
direct the re-investigation of the above referred Case being Behala Police Station Case no. 500 of 2016,
by the higher rank Police Officer as the Joint Commissioner of Police, ( Crime
) Detective Department, of the Kolkata Police, and or by the Additional
Director and Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., West Bengal;
and or,
c)
to
direct the further fresh investigation of the above referred Case being Behala Police Station case no. 500 of 2016,
by the higher rank Police Officer, as the Joint Commissioner of Police, ( Crime
) Detective Department, of the Kolkata Police, and or by the Additional
Director and Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., West Bengal;
d)
and / or to pass such other necessary
order or orders or further order or orders as your Honour may deem, fit, and
proper, for the end of justice.
And for this act of
kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Verification.
I, Sri Arabinda Prasad Bhattacharya, Son of Late Akshay Kumar Bhattacharya,
aged about _______years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation Retired, residing at Sarat
Ghosh Garden Road, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 037, District – South
24-Parganas, hereby declare that the particulars furnished above are true to
the best of my knowledge. I duly verify this application as on the _________day
of _________2019, at the Alipore Criminal Court.
Sri Arabinda Prasad Bhattacharya.
Identified by
me,
Advocate.
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated : 17th
day of January’ 2019.
Place : Alipore
Criminal Court.
