Calcutta High Court Quashes Abetment of Suicide Case Against Central Tax Assistant and Relatives: IBHA Das & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case Overview

The Calcutta High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, quashed criminal proceedings that had been initiated against four petitioners — including a Central Government employee serving as a Tax Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST and Central Excise under the Howrah Commissionerate — along with her family members. The proceedings were registered under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court determined that the complaint, even when read in its entirety and accepted at face value, failed to disclose the essential legal ingredients required to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide. The continuation of such proceedings was held to be an abuse of the process of the court.

Background and Facts of the Case

The Complaint and Initial Proceedings

The criminal case originated from a complaint filed by the de facto complainant (Opposite Party No. 2), alleging that on and around 21st March 2023, the petitioners — acting in furtherance of a common intention — subjected her husband to financial pressure and mental harassment, which ultimately drove him to take his own life.

The complainant alleged that a sum of ₹2 lakhs had been borrowed from her late father, Ranjeet Kumar Das, in the year 2008 by one of the petitioners. It was further alleged that when the deceased husband approached the petitioners seeking repayment, he was subjected to abuse and physical assault, following which he committed suicide. On the basis of this complaint, ACGR No. 1346/2023 was registered at Patuli Police Station (Case No. 79 of 2023, dated 23.03.2023) for investigation into offences under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the matter was pending before the learned Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.

Identity and Background of the Petitioners

The petitioners presented the following background:

  • Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were described as senior citizens (sexagenarians).
  • Petitioner No. 3 is the daughter of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, employed as a Tax Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST and Central Excise under the Howrah Commissionerate.
  • Petitioner No. 4 is the husband of Petitioner No. 3 and son-in-law of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, serving as an Inspector in the Backward Classes Welfare and Tribal Development Department, presently posted as BDO, Sahid Matangini, East Midnapore.

The Petitioners' Counter-Narrative

The petitioners strongly denied all allegations and put forth an entirely different version of events: