Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Aditya Ghosh vs Unknown on 4 April, 2025
04 04.2025
Item. 8
Ct. No. 32
sg
CRR 1258 of 2018
In the matter of: Aditya Ghosh
Petitioner.
Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee
Mr. Praloy Hazra
…. for the petitioner.
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Mainak Gupta
…. for the State.
I.O. is personally present along with
compliance report and Case Diary.
Let compliance report be taken on record.
His personal appearance stands noted and dispensed
with.
None appears on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2 in spite of good service. No accommodation has
been prayed for.
By filing this Criminal Revisional application
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, the petitioner being the brother-in-law of the de-
facto complainant prays for quashing of proceeding being
CGR Case No. 5408 of 2013 arising out of Lake Police
Station Case No. 550 of 2013, dated 20.10.2013 under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
pending before the Court of Learned 4th Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore, South-24-parganas.
2
Subsequently, Charge sheet has been submitted
being charge sheet no. 344 of 2014 dated 31.12.2014
arising out of aforesaid Police Station case number
against the Petitioner and other accused.
The sum and substance of the case is that
opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint against petitioner
along with others for commission of an offence
punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 alleging, inter alia, therein that on 26th
January, 2011, she got married with Shri Arjun Ghose as
per Hindu Rites and Customs. The said marriage was duly
registered as per Special Marriage Act, 1954.
At the time of marriage, her parents gave sufficient
gold ornaments along with other demanded materials,
like furniture and fixture and cash of Rs. One Lakh Fifty
Thousand which were handed over to the husband, Arjun
Ghose. After the marriage, her husband was staying at
rented accommodation at Baguihati, however, when she
started residing her matrimonial home, her mother-in-law
started ill behaviour towards her, inflicted mental and
physical torture and also assaulted her, despite the said
facts, her husband was kept silent and also provoked her
mother-in-law to do so. She lodged complaint against
the present petitioner that he tried to abuse and insulted
her from all corners.
In view of the said written complaint, an FIR was
registered being Lake Police Station Case No. 550 of
2013, dated 20.10.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons
including the petitioner.
After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet
was submitted against all the accused persons including
3
present petitioner under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It is submitted that after registration of FIR, he
surrendered before the Learned Trial Court and was
granted bail. It is further contended that petitioner has
no role to play in any offence as alleged by the de-facto
complainant. He has been falsely implicated into this
case and all the allegation against the present petitioner
is out and out false and fabricated. No specific role has
been attributed against the petitioner whereas it was
alleged that he tried to abuse and insulted her from all
corners. It will no stretch of imagination constitute
offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Therefore, this case may be quashed for securing
ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law
against him.
On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the State produced Case Diary and candidly
submitted that during investigation, statement of the
witnesses was recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It appears that he was only ‘disturbing
her’ apart from that nothing was revealed during
investigation against the present petitioner.
Upon carefully perusal of the Case Diary and
materials available in the report, I find that the allegation
was totally vague and common and general in nature.
Whatever allegation made in the FIR is only regarding his
attempt to abuse her which cannot be said to be
committed offence under the Indian Penal Code.
4
In view of the facts, this Court finds that there are
no materials against the present petitioner in the Case
Diary even for the prima facie case.
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
reported in AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 which
has laid down the basic points for consideration 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 court 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:
5
(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 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal
6proceeding 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.”
In the light of above discussions made by this Court
and in view of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the above cited judgment, this Court fully
satisfies that this case falls in the Categories mentioned
in (1), (5) and (7) above.
In view of the facts, if such proceeding is allowed to
continue it would be a sheer abuse of process of law
against the petitioner herein.
Accordingly, CRR 1258 of 2018 is, thus, allowed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed
of.
Proceeding being CGR case no. 5048 of 2013,
arising out of Lake Police Station Case No. 550 of 2013,
dated 20.10.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Court of
Learned 4th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South-24-
parganas is quashed, insofar as the petitioner is
concerned.
Case Diary be returned to the learned Advocate for
the State.
7
Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Parties will act on the server copies of this
Judgment uploaded from the official website of this Court.
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.)
[ad_1]
Source link