Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Abhishek Dasgupta vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 494 of 2022
ABHISHEK DASGUPTA
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta,
Ms. Sofia Nesar,
Mr. Santanu Sett.
For the State : Ms. Baishali Basu,
Ms. Puspita Saha.
Hearing concluded on : 11.12.2024
Judgment on : 11.12.2024
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1. The present revisional application has been preferred against the
proceeding in connection with Titagarh PS case no.162 of 2020
dated 27.02.2020 under Sections 341, 448, 323, 325 and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the subsequent impugned
chargesheet therein being Titagarh PS chargesheet no.272 of
2020 dated 30.06.2020 under Sections 341, 448 and 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC being GR case no.1487 of 2020 before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore,
North 24 Paraganas.
Page 2
2. The petitioner herein is the brother-in-law (NONOD‟S husband) of
the de facto complainant. It appears from the materials on
record that the petitioner got married to Puja Chakraborty on
13.03.2019 and thereafter due to some matrimonial dispute the
parties started residing separately on and from 15.01.2020.
Subsequently they went for separation by filing a mutual divorce
petition on 29.01.2021 before the concerned Court. The
marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of
divorce on 04.09.2021 in Matrimonial Suit No.290 of 2021.
3. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused in the present case
on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.,
1973 filed by the opposite party no.2, being the ex-husband of
the de facto complainant’s sister-in-law.
4. In the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
de facto complainant, the petitioner has been implicated as
accused no.5. The allegation in the said application is that the
accused persons are trying to grab a shop room of which the
complainant is the absolute owner. The complainant has further
stated therein that on 08.02.2020 the accused persons came to
her house and created disturbances and threatened the
complainant to return the gold ornaments.
5. It appears from the order dated 04.09.2021 passed in
Matrimonial Suit No.290 of 2021 that the petitioner’s marriage
was dissolved on the said date by a decree of divorce. In the said
Page 3
order, it appears that the parties had been living separately from
each other since 15.01.2020. The present case has been initiated
on 27.02.2020.
6. Learned counsel representing the State has placed the case
diary. It appears that the present case was registered on
27.02.2020. As such, the presence of the petitioner on the date
and period of occurrence as alleged is prima facie not correct.
The materials in the case diary also do not make out a prima
facie case against the accused persons for the offences alleged.
7. In Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993, Criminal Appeal No(s). ………
of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022), the
Supreme Court held:-
“15. This Court has an occasion to consider
the ambit and scope of the power of the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing of criminal proceedings in Vineet
Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC
369 decided on 31st March, 2017. It may
be useful to refer to paras 22, 23 and 41 of
the above judgment where the following
was stated:
“22. Before we enter into the facts of the
present case it is necessary to consider the
ambit and scope of jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court.
Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power
of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order
under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice.
Page 4
23. This Court time and again has
examined the scope of jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid
down several principles which govern the
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge
Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that
the High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or
that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7
of the judgment, the following has been
stated :
„7. … In the exercise of this wholesome
power, the High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the court or
that the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving
of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in
civil and criminal matters, is designed to
achieve a salutary public purpose which is
that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material
on which the structure of the prosecution
rests and the like would justify the High
Court in quashing the proceeding in the
interest of justice. The ends of justice are
higher than the ends of mere law though
justice has got to be administered according
to laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper
realisation of the object and purpose of the
provision which seeks to save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice,
between the State and its subjects, it would
be impossible to appreciate the width and
contours of that salient jurisdiction.‟
41. Inherent power given to the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose
Page 5and object of advancement of justice. In
case solemn process of Court is sought to be
abused by a person with some oblique
motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt
at the very threshold. The Court cannot
permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls
in one of the categories as illustratively
enumerated by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335. Judicial process is a solemn
proceeding which cannot be allowed to be
converted into an instrument of operation or
harassment. When there are materials to
indicate that a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fides and
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive, the High Court will not
hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding
under Category 7 as enumerated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 which is to the following effect :
„102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fides 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.‟ Above Category 7 is
clearly attracted in the facts of the present
case. Although, the High Court has noted
the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not
advert to the relevant facts of the present
case, materials on which final report was
submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully
satisfied that the present is a fit case where
the High Court ought to have exercised its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and
quashed the criminal proceedings.”
16. The exposition of law on the subject
relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution
or the inherent power under Section 482
CrPC are well settled and to the possible
extent, this Court has defined sufficiently
channelized guidelines, to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
Page 6
wherein such power should be exercised.
This Court has held in para 102 in State of
Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335 as under :
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the
Code 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 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though 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 of 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
Page 7constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted 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 concerned Act (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
concerned Act, 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.”
17. The principles culled out by this Court
have consistently been followed in the
recent judgment of this Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC
Online SC 315.”
8. The present case falls under clause 3 and 7 of Para 102 of
Bhajan Lal (Supra).
9. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs State of
Telangana & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. ………… of
2024 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024,
decided on December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court held:-
Page 8
“15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of
the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a
woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment
for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The
Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines
“cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to
mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b).
The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation
of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty”
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The
second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section
498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful
conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the
Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that
cruelty would also include harassment of the woman
where such harassment is to coerce 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.
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with
penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any
person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the
exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of
imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine
of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value
of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the
Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It
states that any person demanding dowry directly or
indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or
guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months, but which may extend to
two years and with fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees.
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and
omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1
harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated
him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any
specific details or described any particular instance of
harassment. She has also not mentioned the time,
date, place, or manner in which the alleged
harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks
concrete and precise allegations.
Page 9
25. A mere reference to the names of family members
in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their
active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a
well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience,
that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband‟s family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported
by concrete evidence or particularised allegations
cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts
must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse
of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the
members of the family of appellant No.1 have been
living in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and
respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same
would be an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against each of
them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way
of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
been a growing tendency to misuse provisions
like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his
family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek compliance
with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima facie case
against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what
Page 10
has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC
should remain silent and forbear herself from making
a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That
is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but
we should not encourage a case like as in the present
one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-
husband of the second respondent herein, a
complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by
the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is
meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is
subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily
due to an unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security in the form of dowry. However,
sometimes it is misused as in the present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as
follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.
But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt
which often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the
family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There
are many other reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realties into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by
the husband‟s close relatives who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
Page 11
complainant are required to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2
was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal
scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his
family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein.
Hence, the present case at hand falls within category
(7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan
Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case,
erred in not exercising the powers available to it
under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent
abuse of the Court‟s process by continuing the
criminal prosecution against the appellants.”
10. CRR 494 of 2022 is thus allowed.
11. The proceeding in connection with Titagarh PS case no.162 of
2020 dated 27.02.2020 under Sections 341, 448, 323, 325 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the subsequent
impugned chargesheet therein being Titagarh PS chargesheet
no.272 of 2020 dated 30.06.2020 under Sections 341, 448 and
323 read with Section 34 of IPC being GR case no.1487 of 2020
before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Barrackpore, North 24 Paraganas is hereby quashed, in
respect of the petitioner namely Abhishek Dasgupta.
12. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for
necessary compliance.
Page 12
15. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]