Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vargab Mallik & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 July, 2025
2024:CHC-AS:2491
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
CRR 1382 of 2018
Vargab Mallik & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saibal Basu
For the State : Ms. Sreyasi Biswas
Heard on : 24.06.2025
Judgment on : 01.07.2025
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Petitioners herein have sought for quashing of the proceeding being
GR case no. 1495 of 2012 presently pending before learned ACJM at
Barasat, corresponding to Barasat P.S. Case No. 508 of 2012 dated
20.03.2012 under section 498A/406/323/34 IPC.
2. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the de facto complaint and
petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner no.1 and petitioner No. 3 is the
sister of petitioner no. 1. Petitioners contention is that petitioner no.1 being
the husband, filed matrimonial suit before the Barasat court being Mat Suit
no. 21 of 2012, seeking dissolution of matrimonial relationship between the
parties herein. As soon as the opposite party/complainant came to know
1
2024:CHC-AS:2491
about such filing of divorce suit by the petitioner no.1, in order to wreck
vengeance, she filed the instant complaint with baseless allegation against
the petitioners under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., wherein the court below,
without applying judicial mind directed the police to start investigation. In
fact after receipt of notice of divorce suit filed by petitioner No.1, she not
only lodged the present complaint but also filed another complaint case
no.590 of 2012 under section 12/18/19/20/21/22, of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act., 2005. Aforesaid proceeding alleging domestic
violence under Act. of 2005, subsequently got dismissed for default.
3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned criminal proceeding Mr. Basu,
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though de facto
complainant in her evidence before court specifically admitted that her
husband never tortured her and that her union with her husband usually
used to take place at an interval of around three months and though she
voluntarily decided not to proceed with the case of domestic violence, but
surprisingly she has instituted the present proceeding only to harass the
petitioner and his mother and sister and as such instant proceeding is liable
to be quashed.
4. The opposite party/de facto complainant opposite party no.2 is not
represented.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary
and leaves the prayer made by the petitioner for the discretion of the court.
6. I have gone through the allegations levelled in the FIR, wherefrom it
appears that evasive allegations have been made against the petitioner No.1
and his mother and sister. After going through the contents of the FIR as it
2
2024:CHC-AS:2491
stands, does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against
the co accused, specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering.
FIR does not disclose specific allegation which would persuade the court to
take cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioners and they are
prima facie not found indulging in physical or mental torture to the FIR
maker/ wife.
7. Now though the petitioners were initially booked under section 406
IPC also but after completion of investigation police dropped section 406
from the charge, noting that investigating authority did not attempt to
recover stridhan property as because no such stridhan property gifted at the
time of marriage. So, at this stage for the disposal of the present application,
it is required to be answered by this court whether any allegation under
section 498A or 323 of IPC has been made out or not against the petitioners
during investigation.
8. Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows:-
Section 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) anywilful 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
(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.]3
2024:CHC-AS:2491
9. In view of above provisions of law, it is quite clear that said section is
applicable only to such a case where the husband or the relative of a woman
subjects the said woman to cruelty. The said section also contains
explanation to define “cruelty”, which states that there must be such a
conduct on the part of the husband or relative of the husband of the victim,
which is of such a nature as to cause the women to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or
physical, of the women.
10. Now when I examine the materials collected so far during investigation
including the petition of complaint of the present case, it appears that there
is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a
prima facie case as narrated under the aforesaid explanation i.e. allegation
that there was any such conduct on the part of the petitioners, which could
be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the
victim/opposite party no.2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her
life. Accordingly it is clear that the ingredients to constitute an offence under
explanation (a) of section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in the FIR
or in the charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case has been made out.
11. Now so far as explanation (b) of section 498 of IPC is concerned it
appears that in order to constitute ‘cruelty’ under explanation (b) of the said
section there has to be harassment of the women with a view to coerce her
or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the
allegations made in the FIR and also the materials available in the case
4
2024:CHC-AS:2491
diary including the charge sheet is examined in the context of present case,
in the light of said provision, I find no prima facie case under the provision
of section 498A to attract a case of ‘cruelty’.
12. Except the bald statement that the petitioners had harassed the de
facto complainant, citing instances of some matrimonial discord, nothing
else indicating their involvement in the crime under section 498A IPC has
been made. Moreover, the de facto complainant herein deposed in
Matrimonial Suit no. 21 of 2012 wherein she has clearly admitted in
evidence dated 2nd August, 2019 that her union with her husband usually
used to take place at an interval of around three months and she
categorically admitted further that she was not tortured by her husband
ever. It is also surprising that while adducing evidence in the aforesaid
matrimonial proceeding, the de facto complainant herein even could not
recollect that she initiated the instant criminal proceeding against the
present petitioners. In her evidence dated 22.11.2019 in the said divorce
proceeding, she has stated that she cannot remember whether she came to
Barasat court earlier except in connection with the said matrimonial suit
and she also could not remember about initiation of the instant proceeding.
She categorically stated that she never filed any complaint under section
156(3) of the Cr.P,C. being C 575 of 2012. Not only that she further stated
that may be her lawyer obtained her signatures on some papers, which have
been used to start instant criminal proceeding, but she has no idea about
that case.
13. Now so far as the allegation u/s 323 IPC is concerned it is only stated
in the complaint that the petitioner No. 2 & 3 had inflicted physical and
5
2024:CHC-AS:2491
mental torture upon her when she used to stay with them. Needless to say
that in order to lodge a proper complain, mere mentioning of the section is
not sufficient but what is required to be brought to the notice of the court, is
the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the
role played by each and every accused in committing the offence of causing
bodily pain, deceased or infirmity to the victim. When I examined the
complaint and the charge sheet, allegation is sadly vague and it does not
disclose on which date and at what time the petitioner No. 2 & 3/accused
have committed any such offence nor it states what is the exact role played
by each of the petitioners in the commission of offence of allegedly causing
hurt to the de facto complainant.
14. It is well settled that the extraordinary power under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to
prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. In the present case allegations made in the FIR /complaint as well
as the outcome of the investigation, as available in the case diary, even if are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute offence either under section 498A or under section 323 of IPC
against any of the petitioners. It is true that while considering a prayer for
quashing a criminal proceeding, the High Court is not supposed to look into
the documents relied by the accused persons unless they are tested during
evidence but at the same time the High Court can place reliance upon such
documents furnished by the accused, which are of sterling quality and /or
are impeachable. In the present case the documents relied by the petitioner
relates to evidence adduced by the complainant as referred above which are
6
2024:CHC-AS:2491
impeachable in character. An overall analysis of said documents and
materials collected during investigation clearly suggests that the allegation
of “cruelty” under section 498A or the allegation of “causing voluntary hurt”
under section 323 against the petitioners are imaginary and has been
created as a counter blast measure against the divorce proceeding initiated
by the husband /petitioner no.1.
15. It is also to be mentioned in this context that though the above
mentioned admissions were made by the opposite party/complainant in a
matrimonial proceeding but it is settled law that case may come and go, but
statements made in evidence shall remain for ever and for all purposes too,
allowed by law, such as to be proceeded with as admission, when they are
not rebutted or to be confronted with, under section 145 of Evidence Act,
(72CWN 867).
16. In such view of the matter, the allegations levelled by the complainant
in the FIR as well as the materials available in the final report filed under
section 173 of the Code and all other documents accompanying it, I am
satisfied that no case is made out against the present petitioners and the
pendency of the instant proceeding against them before the court below is
an abuse of process of court.
17. Accordingly CRR 1382 of 2018 is allowed. The impugned proceeding
being GR case no. 1495 of 2012 presently pending before ld. ACJM at
Barasat corresponding to Barasat P.S. Case No. 508 of 2012 dated
20.03.2012 stands qushed.
7
2024:CHC-AS:2491
Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given
to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)
8