Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mr. Arnab Saha And Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 31 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 2244 of 2022
Mr. Arnab Saha and Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Basabraj Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Satyaki Chaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Nahid Ahmed, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Karan Dudhwewala, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.
Heard on : 27.11.2024
Judgment on : 31.01.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
Petitioners/accused persons preferred this instant
application praying for quashing of the proceedings being A.C.G.R.
Case No. 69 of 2022 arising out of Haridevpur P.S. Case No. 3/22
dated 05.01.2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
2. The background facts, which led to filing of this application,
may be adumbrated as under:-
3. The opposite party no. 2/wife of petitioner no. 1 lodged a
written complaint alleging, inter alia, that she got married with the
petitioner no. 1 according to the provision of Special Marriage Act,
1954 followed by social gatherings. At the time of marriage, gold
ornaments and expensive articles were gifted to the accused persons
as per their demand. Even on the date of marriage, the accused
persons humiliated and insulted the family members of the opposite
party no. 2 due to non-fulfilment of their expectations. They had
abused the opposite party no. 2 in filthy languages. The accused
persons started demanding more dowries in the form of cash and
gold ornaments and when she failed to fulfil their demands, started
inflicting torture upon her both physically and mentally.
3
4. The opposite party no. 2/wife also found her husband’s
nature is of short tempered, adamant, abusive and aggressive. He
even refused to meet up with her basic needs and necessities towards
her medication, fooding, clothing and other necessities.
5. In the month of June, 2016, she left her matrimonial home
and took shelter in her parental home. All her stridhan articles were
entrusted with her parents-in-law on insistence of her husband. They
did not allow to take with her stridhan. She believed all the stridhan
articles like ornaments and all other expensive articles have been
misappropriated by the petitioner no. 2, mother-in-law. The parents-
in-law always used to instigate her husband to pressurise her for
bringing more cash.
6. The opposite party no. 2 further alleged that whenever she
demanded her stridhan articles from her husband and parents-in-
law, every time they blandly refused to hand over her stridhan
articles lying in their custody. She came to know that her husband
and parents-in-law opened the almirah where belongings were kept
and apprehended. They have misappropriated her gold ornaments
and expensive articles.
7. On the basis of her written complaint lodged on 28.12.2021,
an FIR was registered being Haridevpur P.S. Case No. 3/22 dated
4
05.01.2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against
the accused/petitioners and initiated investigation. Subsequently,
charge sheet has been submitted against the present petitioners on
22nd April, 2022 being Charge Sheet No. 68 of 2022 under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On the other hand, the contentions
of the petitioners are that all allegations against the petitioners are
false and fabricated. Whatsoever allegations alleged, out and out
false. Petitioners further denied all the allegations levelled against
them. Hence, this Criminal Revisional application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
8. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel along with others
appearing on behalf of the petitioners filed written notes of argument
and further made three fold submissions and prayed for quashing of
the instant proceeding as the same is, according to him, an abuse of
process of law, as such, the proceedings are required to be quashed
for securing ends of justice.
9. The first limb of submission made by the learned senior
counsel with regard to the delay and period of limitation for initiation
of the proceedings. The proceedings, as initiated by the police on the
5basis of complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2/wife, was
beyond the period of three years which is not at all permissible in
terms of Section 468(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It
is apparent from the written complaint that the opposite party no. 2
had left her matrimonial home in the month of June, 2016 whereas
the impugned FIR was lodged on 28th December, 2021 which is after
the expiry of five years since the charges made against the present
petitioners under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all the
Sections, even if proved, it attract a maximum period of three years
imprisonment.
10. It is further evident from the FIR that there is no whisper
regarding alleged torture either mentally or physically after June,
2016. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has
cited the following judgments as under:-
ii. Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalra & Ors.2;
iii. Arun Vyas & Anr. Vs. Anita Vyas3.
1
(2013) 2 SCC 435;
2
(2020) SCC OnLine 1493;
3
(1999) 4 SCC 690.
6
In those cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the
charges as those were initiated beyond the period of three years and
even no explanation was furnished either in the FIR or in Charge
Sheet. The proceedings are barred by limitation.
11. The second limb of submission was that the instant
proceedings are counter blast to the matrimonial proceeding which
was initiated by the petitioner no. 1/husband against the opposite
party no. 2 in the year 2016 being MAT No. 92 of 2016 seeking
divorce. After filing the said matrimonial proceeding the opposite
party no. 2 intentionally to harass and to humiliate the petitioners,
lodged a false and fabricated complaint. Even, during the
investigation, the police did not perform their duties according to law
to unearth/uncover the truth and finally filed charge sheet against
the petitioners in perfunctory manner without sufficient materials. To
support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed a
reliance of a judgment passed in the case of Harmanpreet Singh
Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.4. In the said
judgment, filling of proceedings as a backlash action that too, on
extremely general allegations was frowned upon by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
4
(2009) 7 SCC 712.
7
12. So far as the third limb of submission, the learned senior
counsel submitted that the allegations, made by the opposite party
no. 2, are general and omnibus in nature which does not disclose the
sufficient ingredients of the alleged offences. Furthermore, no specific
role was attributed either to the husband or parents-in-law. There is
no specific date and time mentioned in the FIR with regard to
particular physical and mental torture. All allegations are bald and
general. She herself left her matrimonial home for her own reasons.
She stayed with the petitioners for three years, however, no specific
incident mentioned by her for leaving matrimonial home in the FIR,
as such, Charge Sheet, submitted by the police and the proceedings
thereof are required to be quashed. To support of his contention that
in absence of specific role qua an accused, the continuance of
proceedings was held to be an abuse of the process of Court by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen numbers of cases, the learned
senior counsel has also placed reliance of following judgments as
under:
i. Pritam Ashok Sadaphule & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.5;
ii. Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh & Anr.6;
5
(2015) 11 SCC 769;
6
(2024) SCC OnLine 127;
8
iii. Kahkashan Kausar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
& Ors.7;
iv. Chandralekha & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu8.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court specified that the daily wear
and tear and/or mismatch were never construed to be cruelty. Mental
cruelty is part of the definition of cruelty yet in order to satisfy the
test of mental cruelty, such conduct must be of such nature that
would cause “grave injury”. Mere allegation of mental cruelty without
being any detailed description as to how such mental cruelty was
perpetrated, the allegation of Section 498A of the IPC is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
13. Lastly, the learned senior counsel cited the judgment passed
in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.9 to
support of his contention that when the allegations are general and
omnibus, then the Hon’ble High Court can quash the proceeding
under Section 482 of the CrPC. In the referred judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court deprecated filing of 498A of the IPC cases on mere
bald allegations. The Hon’ble Court further held that the proceedings,
7
(2022) 6 SCC 599;
8
(2013) 14 SCC 374.
9
AIR 2024 SC 2548
9
initiated on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, would be
manifestly mala fide. Then such proceedings can be quashed.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2:
14. Per contra, Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel along with
Mr. Dudhwewala appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2
vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and further submitted that
there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The cruelty perpetrated upon
the opposite party no. 2 was continued even after leaving matrimonial
home. They have continuously tortured upon her mentally. She had
lodged a General Diary No. 992 before the police station on
14.06.2021 i.e. after leaving her matrimonial home.
15. When she left her matrimonial home, she was not permitted
to take her stridhan articles which were lying in the matrimonial
home and, subsequently, it came to her knowledge that petitioners
had opened the almirah, where her belongings were kept. She
demanded her stridhan articles from her husband and parents-in-law
but every time they refused to hand over her stridhan articles lying in
their custody. Even after filing of matrimonial suit and lodging the
FIR, no stridhan articles were handed over voluntarily by the
petitioners.
10
16. It was further submitted that during investigation, some of
the stridhan articles were recovered. However, so many articles have
not been recovered as yet. So, offence punishable under Section 406
of the IPC is still continuing since no full recovery of stridhan was
made during investigation.
17. In addition, it was submitted that the provisions laid down
in CrPC with regard to delay particularly mentioned in Sections 468
and 473 of the CrPC are discretionary in nature. The Court has a
power to relax such delay even for the ends of justice even if delay
construed but here there is no delay at all.
18. It was further submitted that during investigation, the
Investigating Officer seized Injury Report of the opposite party no. 2
and GD Entry. Those documents are sufficient to prove a prima facie
case of torture and cruelty.
19. Finally, it was submitted that all cases registered under
Section 498A of the IPC cannot be taken into account that the same
is false and fabricated. From the FIR itself, it could be revealed that
she was subjected to physical and mental torture on demand of
further dowry and non-fulfilment of the same. During investigation,
sufficient materials were collected against the accused persons.
Therefore, charge sheet was submitted on 22nd April, 2022 being
11
Charge Sheet No. 68 of 2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 against the petitioners/accused persons as such, this
application is liable to be dismissed.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
20. Ms. Faria Hossain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State produced the case diary and further submitted that there
are sufficient incriminating materials collected by the Investigating
Officer. The injury reports of Durba Dutta as well as de-facto
complainant were seized during investigation. From there it can be
ascertained that she was physically assaulted by the accused
persons. Furthermore, no full stridhan articles could be recovered
during the investigation due to non-cooperation of the petitioners.
Therefore, the question of quashing of the instant proceedings does
not arise and the same is liable to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT:
21. 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 there is no dispute that the
petitioner no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2. She lodged
complaint against the petitioner no. 1 and in-laws with regard to
12
physical and mental torture for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
She is now residing separately and took shelter in her parental house
in the month of June, 2016. She has alleged the accused persons
were inflicting physical and mental torture, when she was residing in
her matrimonial home. She further alleged that her stridhan articles
like ornaments and all other expensive articles have been
misappropriated by the petitioner no. 2, mother-in-law, when
opposite party no. 2 was not in her matrimonial home. When she
demanded her stridhan articles from her husband and parents-in-
law, every time they refused to hand over her stridhan articles lying
in their custody. During investigation, some of the stridhan articles
were recovered. They did not voluntarily returned the stridhan
articles even after filing a matrimonial suit by the husband against
the opposite party no. 2 seeking for divorce.
22. Her allegation against the husband and in-laws are that they
inflicted mental and physical tortures upon her. The physical torture
was not specified in her complaint after June, 2016. But, there were
continuous mental tortures and the scope of mental torture is not
narrow but it is very wide. The same cannot be decided only on the
basis of averments made in the written complaint. Mental cruelty
perpetrated upon the opposite party no. 2/wife even after she left the
matrimonial home and that was continued. She had lodged General
13
Diary lastly on 14.06.2021. So, question of delay in lodging complaint
is not attracted in any manner.
23. It was the accusation that the petitioners had/have refused
to meet up with her basic needs and necessities towards her
medication, fooding, clothing etc.
24. During investigation, sufficient incriminating materials were
collected by the Investigating Officer including the injury reports of
the opposite party no. 2 and her mother against the petitioners.
25. It also appears from the case diary that the Investigating
Officer also recorded statements of vital witnesses like Driver,
Relatives including opposite party no. 2. They have prima facie
narrated about the torture inflicted upon her.
26. Finally, a charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating
Officer after culmination of investigation on 22nd April, 2022 being
Charge Sheet No. 68 of 2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 against the petitioners/accused persons.
27. Considering the aforesaid incriminating materials available
in the case diary, this Court finds prima facie case has been
established against the accused persons. In such a situation, this
14
Court is not inclined to quash the instant proceeding because all
those facts of allegations are required to be considered after
conclusion of trial.
28. The contention of the learned counsel regarding initiation of
the proceedings after expiry of three years is not at all convincing and
acceptable in the present facts and circumstances of this case
because she lodged a complaint on 28th December, 2021 indicating
sufficient ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and during
investigation, sufficient materials were collected against the accused
persons as such, criminal proceedings, where it indicate prima facie
case against the accused persons, ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage.
29. We should not forget, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others10 has laid down the several principles to be followed by the
Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India out of those principles,
few are as follows: –
10
(2021) SCC Online SC 315
15“i) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
ii) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled
at the initial stage;
iii) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the
Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
iv) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the
Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the Court;
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing
of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
16allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that
the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. After investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the
application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known
procedure;
vii) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused and the Court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR
disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The Court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make
out a cognizable offence and the Court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR;”
30. The judgments referred by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners do not improve the case of the petitioners in the present
facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
17
31. In view of the above-mentioned facts and prima facie
materials available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that the
instant Criminal Revisional application has devoid of merits.
32. Accordingly, CRR No. 2244 of 2022 is dismissed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
33. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
34. Case Diary, if any, is to be returned to the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.
35. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
36. 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)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_1]
Source link