1 728 19.07.2017 Court 28 W. P. 18770 (W) of 2017 In the matter of : Sneha Mondal Petitioner. Mr. Rama Prasad Sarkar for the Petitioner. Ms. Chama Mukherjee, Ms. Subhra Nag for the State. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Subhendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Krishan Ray for the Private Respdt. No.5, 7 & 8. Mr. Sabir Ahamed, Mr. Habibur Rahaman for the Private Respdt. No.4 & 6. Affidavit of service is taken on record. An unfortunate widow is before this court complaining that her husband was done to death by the private respondents. It is her grievance that in spite of representations made to the police authorities, no steps were taken in the matter. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the State- respondents submits report wherefrom it appears that 2an inquest enquiry was held with regard to the unnatural death of one Kush Mondal, the husband of the petitioner who, it was claimed, had committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling on 12.9.2014. From the inquest enquiry being Mogra P.S. U/D Case No.45 of 2014 dated 12.09.2014, it appears that the petitioner did not lodge any complaint against anyone. Accordingly, the matter was closed and the deadbody was handed over to the petitioner who cremated the same. Belatedly, she has the issue that her husband had been murdered. The report is taken on record. Copy of the said report be handed over to the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties. Learned lawyer appearing for the private respondents denies and disputes the allegations levelled against them and submits that the allegation of homicidal death is being resurrected after three years of closure of enquiry, as aforesaid. In reply, learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submits that she had lodged complaint with regard to homicidal death in 2014, which, however, is disputed by the learned lawyer appearing for the State- 3respondents, who submits that no such complaint was received by the police authorities. It is true that an allegation of murder is a matter of serious import and, therefore, it is ordinarily incumbent on the police authorities to promptly act on such complaints. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, particularly in view of the closure of inquest enquiry in 2014 and that too in the light of the petitioner not contemporaneously raising any grievance with regard to the homicidal death of her husband, I consider that a preliminary enquiry in terms of the law declared in Lalita Kumari Vs Govt. of UP & Ors. reported in (2014)
2 SCC 1 is necessary prior to registration of FIR. Officer-in-charge, Mogra Police Station is directed to conduct preliminary enquiry into the matter and submit report before this court on the next date of hearing. Let this matter appear under the same heading two weeks hence. Petitioner is directed to cooperate with such enquiry in accordance with law.
4 (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)