[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amitava Ghosh & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 30 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 4132 of 2023
Amitava Ghosh & Another
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sourav Mondal, Adv.
Mr. Abhirup Halder, Adv.
Mr. Rany Mondal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Dipam Mozumder, Adv.
Mr. Banshi Badan Maity, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP
Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Adv.
Heard on : 17.04.2025
Judgment on : 30.04.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC‘) seeking for
quashing of the proceeding arising out of Chakdah Police Station
Case No. 313 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023 under Sections
498A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 1371 of 2023 and Charge Sheet being No. 359/2023 dated
31.05.2023 filed under Sections 498A/325/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 as well as all orders passed therein pending before the
Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani,
Nadia.
2. The brief facts of the case are relevant for the purpose of
disposal of this case as under: –
2a. Petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is
the sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. On 16.05.2023, the
opposite party no. 2/complainant lodged a written complaint before
the Inspector-in-Charge, Chakdah Police Station, inter alia, alleging
that she got married with one Saumyadip Ghosh according to Hindu
Rites and Customs about 3 years ago. She gave birth of one male
child. Subsequently, she was tortured physically and mentally by her
husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law. She further alleged that she
3was forced not to have any sort of contacts with her parental home,
as such the opposite party no. 2 started living in Nadia with her
husband and child. But, suddenly on 15.05.2023 at about 6:00-6:30
pm, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 assaulted her physically
with instigation of petitioners resulting in registration of an FIR being
Chakdah Police Station Case No. 313 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023
under Sections 498A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2b. After conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a Charge Sheet being No. 359/2023 dated 31.05.2023
under Sections 498A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
the petitioners and husband of the opposite party no.2 though the
contention of the Petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and in no
way involved in the offence as alleged by the opposite party no. 2. The
allegation against the petitioners is out and out false, frivolous and
fabricated. Petitioner no. 1 is a senior citizen presently aged about 80
years and petitioner no. 2 is a married lady residing permanently
with her husband in her matrimonial home. Opposite party no.2 and
her husband are residing in Nadia after their marriage. Opposite
party no. 2 never resided in the in-laws house.
2c. The FIR has been lodged to pressurise the petitioners only to
grab one storied residential building standing on a land measuring
an area about 2 Kathas and same was constructed by the mother-in-
4law, since deceased. A suit for partition being Title Suit No.341 of
2023 is pending before the Learned 2nd Civil Judge, (Sr.) Division at
Baruipur. Hence, this application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel along with others representing
the petitioners submitted that whatsoever allegations levelled against
the petitioners are false and frivolous. The allegations made by the
opposite party no. 2 are out and out false. Opposite party no. 2 has
not disclosed any specific overt act played by the petitioners.
3a. It was further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has
made allegations of physical and mental torture by the father-in-law
and sister-in-law without residing in her matrimonial home. She is
residing in a different place i.e. in Nadia far from the Matrimonial
home. She does not disclose particular time and date of alleged
physical and mental tortures. The allegations are omnibus and
general in nature as such the proceeding started thereof is an abuse
of process of law. Hence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.
4. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 at the
time of call. No accommodation was sought for.
5
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced
the case diary and further submitted that during investigation,
sufficient materials were collected against the present petitioners and
a prima facie case has been established under Sections 498A/325/34
of the IPC against the present petitioners. Accordingly, a Charge
Sheet being No. 359/2023 dated 31.05.2023 under Sections
498A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been filed against
accused persons. After going through the materials collected during
investigation, the Learned Court below took cognizance and initiated
proceeding against the present petitioners. Therefore, this Criminal
revisional application has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT:
6. Heard the arguments and submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record as
well as case diary, this Court finds the allegations made against the
petitioners are general and omnibus. No specific date and time are
mentioned with regard to the physical torture or any other types of
torture or assault. Specific allegation, however, appears against her
husband to the effect that she was assaulted by her husband on
15.05.2023 at 6:00-6:30 pm. It was alleged that her husband
6
assaulted her on the instigation by the Petitioners. However, no
manner, date and time mentioned either in the complaint or
statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC regarding
instigation by the petitioners.
7. To constitute the offence under Sections 498A/325/34 of the
IPC, some essential ingredients are required to be fulfilled. It would
be appropriate and convenience to refer the Sections and their
essential ingredients for proper adjudication of this case. To ascertain
the same, this Court would like to refer the Sections and their
ingredients for ready reference and appropriate decisions of this case
as under: –
S. 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty. -Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation. –For the purposes of this section,
‘cruelty’ means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
7
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
Ingredients:
(a) The woman must be married;
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
and
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been
shown either by husband of the woman or by the
relative of her husband.
(d) Cruelty may be physical, mental, emotional and
financial harassment that endanger woman’s health
or life.
S. 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing
grievous hurt:- Whoever, except in the case
provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes
grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
8
Ingredients:
(i) That the accused caused grievous hurt to any
person;
(ii) That such hurt was caused voluntarily;
(iii) That such a case was not provided for by section
335 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 34 reads as follows:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention. –When a criminal act is done by
several persons, in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that
act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.”
Ingredients:
To establish joint liability under Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution must prove
that a criminal act was committed by several
persons in furtherance of a common intention.
8. Upon perusal of the aforesaid sections, ingredients and case
record, it appears that the marriage between the son of petitioner no.
1 and opposite party no. 2 has taken place about three years ago
from the date of lodging complaint. She gave birth of a male child
9
from the said wedlock. She alleged that her husband, father-in-law
and sister-in-law used to torture physically and mentally after the
birth of a child at her matrimonial home but no specific reason for
such torture has been disclosed.
9. It is admitted facts that she is residing with her husband in
Nadia, where she lodged complaint. The said place is far away from
her matrimonial home and is situated in another district. She alleged
that about the incident of assault by her husband on 15.05.2023,
when she was residing in the Nadia with her husband and child. Be
that as it may, she alleged the incident of tortures by the petitioners
without any specific time and date and further failed to specify the
details of the torture inflicted by the petitioners. No specific role or
overt act has been attributed against the Petitioners. Mere allegations
of physical and mental torture inflicted by the Petitioners are
insufficient to initiate proceeding against the present petitioners,
when she resides separately from the Matrimonial home.
10. Upon careful perusal of the written complaint, it reveals that
allegations against the Petitioners are vague. No specific or
particulars of date, time and manner of torture have been disclosed.
Furthermore, during investigation, it does not prove that her father-
in-law or sister-in-law tortured her. No specific role or reasons has
been disclosed by opposite party no. 2 with regard to torture either
10
physically or mentally. No demand whatsoever made by the
petitioners even then charge sheet has been submitted by the
Investigating Officer against the petitioners. During investigation, the
Investigating Officer recorded the statements under Section 161 of
CrPC of available witnesses. From the perusal of the statements, it
reveals that upon instigation of the Petitioners, her husband
assaulted her on 15.05.2023 but without details of instigation of the
petitioners.
11. This Court also does not repose confidence about the
allegations, levelled by the opposite party no. 2/wife against the
petitioners rather it appears the accusations made by the opposite
party no. 2/wife are general, omnibus in nature and also not distinct.
12. Furthermore, a suit for partition being Title Suit No.341 of
2023 is pending before the Learned 2nd Civil Judge, (Sr.) Division at
Baruipur amongst the family members. The petitioners are residing
separately in another district. Sister-in-law is married and resides in
her matrimonial home under Mahestala Police station.
13. The charge sheet has not revealed any evidence even to
establish a prima facie case against the Petitioners herein. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that if such proceedings continue against
the petitioners, the conviction of petitioners appears bleak and
11
remote. To secure the ends of justice, the proceedings are deserved to
be quashed under the inherent power granted under Section 482 of
the CrPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
14. We should not forget at this moment the well-settled Law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has laid down the basic points for consideration in pursuant to which
a complaint may be entertained in accordance with law before a
Court of law. The Court has narrated down as to when the
extraordinary power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure may be espoused. Relevant portion thereof may
beneficially be quoted herein below: –
“102. This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of
various relevant provisions of CrPC under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in
a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the
1
AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 : 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
12court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus,
this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
13permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
15. In the light of above discussions and in view of observation
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment, this
14
Court fully satisfies that this case falls in the Categories mentioned in
(1), (3) and (5) above.
16. Accordingly, CRR 4132 of 2023 is, thus, allowed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
17. Consequently, the proceeding arising out of Chakdah Police
Station Case No. 313 of 2023 dated 16.05.2023 under Sections
498A/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 1371 of 2023 and Charge Sheet being No. 359/2023 dated
31.05.2023 under Sections 498A/325/35 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia are hereby quashed insofar as the
petitioners herein are concerned and all orders passed therein
against the present petitioners are also set aside.
18. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Case Diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the
State.
21. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the official website of this Court.
15
22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
Later:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2
submits that the opposite party no. 2 was unaware about the listing
and conclusion of hearing of this matter. Though, he admits that a
Vakalatnama has already been filed on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2. He prays for stay of this Judgment and Order for a limited
period. Prayer for stay is considered and rejected.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_2]
Source link