w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Abir Saha & Others v/s The State of West Bengal & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- SAHA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KA1991PTC012267

Company & Directors' Information:- C C SAHA LTD [Active] CIN = U36920WB1933PLC007695

Company & Directors' Information:- B N SAHA CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U12000WB1938PTC009498

    CRR. No. 2805 of 2018

    Decided On, 23 July 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD

    For the Appearing Parties: Navanil De, Pawan Gupta, Ayantika Roy, Rana Mukherjee, Debjani Sahu, Mayukh Mukherjee, Kaustav Lal Mukherjee, Advocates.



Judgment Text

In this revisional application the petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in connection with Sessions Case No. 35 of 2018 arising out of Bongaon P.S. Case No. 1201 dated November 05, 2015 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bongaon at North 24-Parganas.

An FIR was lodged by the complainant that his daughter namely, Moumita Nath, a student of Class-X had an affair with the petitioner No. 1. On November 04, 2015 the petitioner No. 1 refused to marry the victim and it was further alleged that the parents of the petitioner No.1 refused to accept the victim as their daughter in law and passed some comments which lead her to commit suicide by hanging.

On completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet against three accused persons including the present petitioners vide Charge-sheet No. 748 of 2016 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on February 19, 2018 and transferred the case to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bongaon, North 24- Parganas for trial and disposal.

In this revisional application challenge, inter alia, is on the grounds that the petitioner no. 1 refused to marry a girl of sixteen years and as the parents of the petitioner refused to give in marriage of the victim with the petitioner no. 1, the victim committed suicide by hanging. From the four corner of the FIR there is no material to infer that there was any abetment on the part of the petitioners which compelled the victim girl to commit suicide. The impugned proceeding is malicious and has been filed to wreck vengeance on the societal status of the petitioners.

It is submitted that the neighbours' statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reflect that the victim committed suicide as she was rebuked by her parents, hence, no case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out from the side of the prosecution against the petitioners.

As many as five independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. None of the witnesses have made any aspersions against the petitioners to reveal abetment meted out to the victim to commit suicide. It is submitted that every ill-treatment including humiliation etc. would not fall with the purview of illegal omission because every omission is not illegal. Some active steps have to be taken by words or action with intent to instigate inasmuch as encouragement, of necessity, does not amount to aiding or abetting. Abetment implies an intentional abetment. There can be no abetment if the mens rea is missing.

Question raised in this revision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected during the investigation, would amount to mental cruelty compelling the victim to commit suicide?

It is submitted that there can be no abetment in the given case. My attention is invited to the provision of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which defines abetment of thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as offence. A person abets the doing of a thing, who (i) instigates any person to do that thing; (ii) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as crime. The word 'instigate' literally means to provoke, incite or urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided of the original offence. Abetment in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code means the person abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with, the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.

The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit aprosecution case to continue. The Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose. Where the chances of the conviction and no useful purpose will be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may quash the proceeding even though it is at a preliminary stage.

It is submitted that the purported allegations made in the petition of complaint against the petitioners are so absurd and inherently improbable that a prudent person could never reach a just conclusion that there is any prima facie case against the petitioners. The only intention of the complainant is to wreck the vengeance against the petitioners without any iota of materials.

It is also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence justifying any initiation of such proceeding and the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is perverse and bad in law. The impugned proceeding is intentionally and manifestly initiated with an oblique motive only to harass the petitioners.

Mr. Navanil De learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Pawan Gupta and Ms. Ayantika Roy to buttress his argument referred to a decision in case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 adverting to the observation made in paragraph 7 thus--

"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

In case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) SC 128 wherein it has been observed that the magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

In case of G. Sagar Suri and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 754 wherein it has been observed in paragraph 7 and 8 thus--

"7. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 749 and Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr., [1998] 7 SCC 698, wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

The learned counsel for the petitioners also place reliance in case of Swapan Roy and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. reported in 2016 (3) AICLR 6 (Cal.) in support of his case adverting to the observation made in paragraph 6 thus--

"6. .........It is settled law that a petulant and hypersensitive act of self annihilation cannot be hinged to every act of criticism made of the victim in ordinary course of business. There must be a direct and proximate link between the alleged instigation and the commission of suicide by the victim to bring such act within the penal scope of Section 306 IPC (see Sanju vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371). In the said report the accused exhorted the victim "to go & die" in course of a quarrel and the victim was found dead two days later. It was held that the proximate link between the exhortation and the act of suicide had snapped and proceeding was quashed. Similarly, in the instant case there is nothing to show when the alleged taunts or criticism of the victim was made by his elders, that is, the petitioners who are no one other than his maternal uncle and aunt and the act of self annihilation so as to form a direct nexus between the two. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the contents of the diary exposes a confused mind and does not disclose a direct act of instigation or goading to commit suicide by the victim. It has been held in a series of authorities if analysis of the suicide note in the factual backdrop merely discloses ill- treatment or criticism of a hypersensitive victim in ordinary course of human events, the same cannot be construed to an act of instigation under Section 107 IPC to commit suicide (See Modan Mahan Singh vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628 and State of Kerala vs.KP Unnikrishnan Nair, (2015) 9 SCC 639). The ratio of the aforesaid authorities apply with full force to the facts of the case."

In case of Subha Narayan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

reported in 2006(3) CHN 651 it has been observed that cannot be denied that to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is not enough that the victim was subjected to some harassment or used to be criticized but something more than it is necessary. It is necessary to establish that the instigation was the proximate cause for commission of suicide and mere vague allegation, that too without referring to any date or time or any particular incident, cannot constitute an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

It has been observed in paragraph 15 and 16 thus-- "

5. that the question now arises as to whether there is any reason for intervention in this matter right at this stage. Till now, on the basis of the materials placed before the learned Court, cognizance has been taken of the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

Nothing more has been done so far. But when it is found that the materials as disclosed on investigation do not constitute an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code or for that matter, any offence in law, whether there can be any justification for allowing the proceeding to continue.

16. Though the facts and circumstances of the present case are significantly different from those of the cases as referred to earlier, I am of the opinion that in absence of even prima facie material or even something more than mere shadow of doubt implicating the petitioner with the offence under Section 306 of IPC, further continuation of the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of Court. I think in the best interest of justice, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, further proceeding should be quashed."

In case of Sister Lily vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2016) 2 C Cr LR (Cal) 546 a decision in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 917 has been relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence it also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.

Yet, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141 wherein it has been observed that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional.

In the present case the Investigating Officer has submitted report, as per the telephonic information received on 18.5.2019 at 10.35 Hrs. S.I. Prasanta Kumar Biswas Bongaon P.S. had been to the house of Ashim Saha and found that the door of the house of said Ashim Saha was closed from inside and after breaking open the door in presence of Ashim's son Arindom Saha, he was found lying in his bed in unconscious condition and immediately he was shifted to hospital where he was declared brought dead by the Medical Officer. Obviously, it was a case of unnatural death of the petitioner no. 2 who was one amongst other petitioners seeking to quash the proceeding under reference. So, his case is required to be filed for ever.

It is pointed out by way of supplementary affidavit that the maternal uncle of the victim, namely, Sujit Nath alias Kanchan is a renowned lawyer of the Bongaon Court who is influencing the proceeding of the Court and he is the scribe of the FIR who has influenced the surety of Abir Saha, petitioner no. 1 to withdraw his surety on behalf of the said petitioner no. 1 on the score that he was not contacting the surety and was not appearing before the learned Court.

By order dated August 21, 2018 the learned Court discharged the surety and directed the petitioner no. 1 to arrange the fresh surety by August 24, 2018 but the petitioner could not get any surety due to influence by lawyer Sujit Nath alias Kanchan. An application for transfer of the case to Barasat Court has been preferred when the learned Court at Bongaon fixed the date for framing of charge on September 14, 2018.

Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 by pressing in service a certificate of birth of the victim girl pointed out that her date of birth is on 9th February, 1999 and she expired on 18.5.2019 so she was 16 years old on the date of occurrence and has invited my attention at pages 7, 8 and 9 of the Case Diary wherein the witnesses namely, Subhasis Ghosh, Sanjib Saha, Ratan Haldar and Joydev Mondal appear to have developed their statements. If the victim girl was 16 years of age and if the fact of refusal by the petitioner to marry her is on the score of being a minor girl, such refusal by the petitioner no. 1 to marry her cannot be taken to be an act of coercion, harassment or any amount of provocation to such a pass that could compel the girl to commit suicide.

The plain reading of the FIR reflects that as because the petitioner no. 1 refused to marry a girl of 16 years and as the parents of the petitioner refused to give in marriage of the victim with the petitioner no. 1, the victim committed suicide by hanging. From the four corners of the FIR the case of abetment on the part of the petitioner is not made out which compelled the victim to commit suicide. My attention has been invited to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer during investigation wherefrom it can safely be said that the victim girl committed suicide as she was rebuked by her parents. As many as five independent witnesses have been examined but none of them made any aspersions against the petitioners. It is also reflected from the FIR that prior to her committing suicide, the parents of the petitioner no. 1 were informed but they refused to accept the daughter of de-facto complainant as their daughter-in-law and drove her out of their house and made some provocating statement which compelled her to commit suicide. It is crystal clear from such contents of FIR that it does not yield any element of abetment of suicide.

Taking cue from the observations as made in the above cited decisions and taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses twice recorded by two successive Investigating Officers, there appears a serious doubt in the judicial mind in respect of the prosecution case which does not justify continuation of the proceeding under reference. It would appear from the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that almost all of the prosecution witnesses stated before the I.O. that the victim girl committed sui

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

cide because her parents had rebuked her. But subsequently, some of the prosecution witnesses have changed their version leveling allegations against the petitioner for having compelled the victim to commit suicide. I am of the view in the facts and circumstance of the case that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent to warrant prosecution of the petitioners/accused persons for the alleged offence under Section 306/34 I.P.C. In the context of what has been discussed above and bearing in mind the principles of law as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the view that allegations leveled in the FIR and charge sheet including police papers even taken together at their face value and accepted in its entirety do not make out any offence against the petitioners, the continuation of such proceeding would amount to a sheer abuse of the court and not in the interest of justice. So to prevent abuse of the process of court, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed as I do not find materials so as to justify proceeding any further. Lending words from the decision in case of Sister Lily (supra), I do share the pain and agony of the parents for having lost school going daughter but somebody should be punished to heal up such wound, is not a right thought or desirable. Ergo, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding because continuation of the proceeding under reference would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the proceeding in connection with Sessions Case No. 35 of 2018 arising out of Bongaon P.S. Case No. 1201 dated November 05, 2015 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bongaon at North 24-Parganas is hereby quashed. In the result, revisional application being CRR 2805 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. Urgent certified Photostat copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Sayyad Shabbir Sheikh @ Sayyad Shabbir Saha Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-2020 Sayyad Shabbir Sheikh @ Sayyad Shabbir Saha Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-09-2020 Emirates Airlines Versus Srikanta Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2020 Manoj Kumar Saha @ Manoj Kumar Sah Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise & Registration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Pushpak Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus Goutam Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Bidyut Kumar Saha Versus Tapa Saha High Court of Tripura
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo, West Bengal Versus IPSITA Saha, West Bengal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 M/s. Tridev Express Cargo Versus IPSITA Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2020 Neeta Saha, Member of Suspended Board of Palm Developers Pvt. Ltd., U.P. Versus Ram Niwas Gupta (Proprietor of Ram Niwas Gupta & sons), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 Kaushik Saha Versus The Genaral Manager, SBI & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-02-2020 Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Versus On Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-02-2020 Lipika Dey (Saha) Versus Babul Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
07-02-2020 Bijali Saha & Another Versus Riman Saha High Court of Tripura
03-02-2020 Debasish Saha Versus Godrej Properties Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Kalyani Saha & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Pankaj Behari Saha V/S The State of Tripura, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
17-01-2020 Monotosh Saha Versus Sanjit Thakurata & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-01-2020 Bibhas Saha & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-01-2020 Debasish Saha & Others Versus Godrej Properties Limited & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-11-2019 Santi Swaasthalaya & Anusandhan Kendra Pvt. Ltd. Versus Iti Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 Debdas Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Saha Versus UCO Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-09-2019 Goutam Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-09-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-09-2019 Shibani Saha & Another Versus Subhasish Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-08-2019 M/s. Aridipa Enterprise Rep. by its partner, Soma Basu Versus Partha Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-08-2019 M/s. Bose Enterprise Rep. by Rana Basu & Another Versus Chayanika Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-08-2019 Jagannath Saha @ Rinku Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-08-2019 Bikash Kr. Saha Versus The Branch Manager, Muragachha, Dharmada CCC West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-08-2019 Sukanta Saha Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
30-07-2019 Kishori Mohan Sinha alias Singha Versus Kumaresh Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2019 Debabrata Dutta Versus Joy Gopal Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
16-07-2019 Gouri Saha Versus Amarendra Nath Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-07-2019 Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Manabendra Saha Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-07-2019 Kabita Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-07-2019 Union of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Others Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha & Another Supreme Court of India
01-07-2019 Ranjit Kumar Sarkar Versus Pew Saha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-05-2019 Sribash Chandra Saha & Others Versus Rubber Board & Others High Court of Tripura
29-05-2019 Sushmita Saha Versus M/s. Amarpali Property Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-05-2019 Nandini Bala Saha Versus Dr. M. Pramanik & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-05-2019 Sanjukta Saha & Others Versus Chandana Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-05-2019 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
29-04-2019 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. DLF Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2019 M/s. Kamala Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus Soumen Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-04-2019 Monjur Alam Mallick Versus Rajib Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-04-2019 Bhajan Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
29-03-2019 Bank of Baroda Versus Susmita Saha High Court of Delhi
27-03-2019 Tapas Dey Versus Aronjit Saha & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-03-2019 Bhelupada Saha @ Velupada Saha Versus Prahallad Ghosh & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-02-2019 Dr. Prasanta Saha Versus Pritam Sarkar & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-02-2019 The Station Master, Berhampore Court Station P.O. & P.S. & Others Versus Aditya Kumar Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-01-2019 Sumit Kumar Saha Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
28-01-2019 Sangita Saha Versus Abhijit Saha & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2019 Dipak Kumar Saha Versus Bandhan Bild Con. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2019 Bhajan Saha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-01-2019 Partha Sarathi Saha (Proprietor of M/s Sri Krishna Automobiles) Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner High Court of Delhi
28-11-2018 Sanjib Saha & Another Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2018 Sanjoy Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-11-2018 Biltu Saha & Others Versus The Union of India, Through the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-10-2018 Soma Saha Versus Assam Power Distribution Co Ltd. High Court of Gauhati
01-10-2018 Mandira Saha Versus Sona Halder & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-09-2018 United India Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Uttam Kr. Saha & Others High Court of Gauhati
19-09-2018 Jayanta Saha, Kolkata Versus Dcit, Circle - 25, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
18-09-2018 Mobile Store Versus Subal Saha & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
14-09-2018 Kamal Saha Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-09-2018 Anand Kumar Saraogi & Another Versus Amitamoyee Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-08-2018 Milon Roy Chowdhury Versus Ashis Kumar Saha & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-08-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Ashim Kumar Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-08-2018 Suman Saha Versus Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-08-2018 Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Saha Versus Ombir Singh & Others High Court of Delhi
06-08-2018 Archana Roy (Saha) & Others Versus Sanjib Bhattacharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-07-2018 Mani Saha Versus Apollo Gleneagles Hospital & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
30-07-2018 Paramita Saha (Nandi) Versus Birangshu Narayan Dash Sharma & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-07-2018 Debabrata Saha Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-07-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dulali Saha & Others High Court of Tripura
03-07-2018 Sukumar Sutradhar & Another Versus Sanjoy Saha West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-06-2018 Sanjib Ratan Saha Versus The Institute of Cost Accountant of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-06-2018 Dr. Arindam Butt Versus Manoj Kumar Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-06-2018 Tapan Kumar Saha Versus Susmita Bhowmik & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-05-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihir Lal Mukherjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-05-2018 Manager, Bank of Baroda Jodhpur Park Branch Versus Susanta Saha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-04-2018 Gopal Saha Versus Anil Roy Chowdhury & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-04-2018 Dr. Anirban Jana, Medical Officer, Kasturi District Hospital Versus Kamal Saha & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-04-2018 Sunipa Saha Versus State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
19-03-2018 Sima Saha Versus Prabir Kumar Saha High Court of Tripura
15-03-2018 Rama Saha Versus M/s. Dream Dwellings & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-02-2018 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sumit Kumar Saha & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-02-2018 Shree Shew Prokash Saha Versus M/s. D.L.F. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-02-2018 Union of India Versus Ranjit Kumar Saha High Court of Gauhati
02-02-2018 Dr. Kunal Saha & Another Versus Principal Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-01-2018 Chittaranjan Saha & Others Versus Arun Kumar Das High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-01-2018 Tapati Saha & Others Versus Sukumar Dutta & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-01-2018 Joydeb Saha Versus Mihirlal Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2018 Shanti Dey @ Santi Dey Versus Sri Suvodeep Saha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-12-2017 Tapas Kumar Saha Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2017 Ashis Kanti Saha Versus The Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board, Represented by its Chairman, Agartala & Others High Court of Tripura
04-12-2017 Bijoli Rani Saha @ Bijali Saha Versus Prabal Basak High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-11-2017 Chhana Rani Saha Versus Mani Pal @ Kaltu Pal Supreme Court of India
14-11-2017 Sayed Ekram Saha & Others Versus Debendra Kumar Pati & Others High Court of Orissa