Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishnendu Ganguly & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 16 January, 2025
16.01.2025
Sl. No.: 13
Court No.30
BM
CRR 1425 of 2023
Krishnendu Ganguly & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee
Mr. Sandip Ray
... for the petitioners
Ms. Puspita Saha
... for the State
Mr. Subhasree Patel
Mr. Soham Banerjee
... for the opposite party no.2
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing of proceeding arising out of Nabadwip PS case
No.120/15, under Sections 498(A)/323/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabadwip, Nadia.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the defacto
complainant who submit that the couple in the present case
have divorced.
3. As there is none appearing for the State, Ms. Puspita Saha,
learned counsel for the State present in court is appointed to
represent the State in this case. Let her appointment be
regularised by the competent authority.
4. The petitioners in this case are the relatives of the husband of
the defacto complainant. The parties were married in the year
2014 and the present case was initiated in the year 2015 within
one year of marriage. The allegations are under Section
498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The allegations in the written complaint are as follows :-
2
"..........That on 16.03.2015 complainant lodged a
written complaint the effect is that on 20.07.2014
complainant's marriage was held with one
Chandan@Chandi Sarkar by registry & festival was
held on 01.08.2014 as per Hindu Customs. During
marriage father of complainant gave cash
Rs.2,00,000/-, gold made ornaments of 6 bhories,
almirah, showcase, utensils & other things to
accused persons as dowry. After marriage
complainant went to the husband's house and used
to live as husband and wife with Chandan @
Chandi Sarkar. During that period complainant
understand that her husband is not fit physically.
She told her husband consulting this with Doctor
over that issue accused persons used torture upon
complainant both physically and mentally and
claimed Rs.1,00,000/- from her father, but father of
complainant could not fulfil their demand as a result
accused persons used more torturing on
complainant. Confined her into room, also tried to kill
her by kerosene with fire. Then she was driven from
her husband's house keeping all streedhan.
Complainant lodged GDE at Women PS Krishnagar
vide No.305/14. On 08.03.15 at about 09.00 hrs.
accused persons entered into house of complainant's
father and threatened complainant for withdraw
said G.D.E No.305/14. Complainant assumed
Women P.S. take action so this delay to lodge
complaint....."
6. Section 498A IPC, lays down:-
"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 purpose 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
(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
3
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
Ingredients of offence- The essential
ingredients of the offence under sec 498A are as
follows:
1) A woman was married;
2) She was subjected to cruelty;
3) Such cruelty consisted in-
i) Any lawful conduct as was likely to
drive such woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to her
life, limb or health whether mental or
physical;
ii) harm to such woman with a view to
coercing her to meet unlawful demand
for property or valuable security or on
account of failure of such woman or any
of her relations to meet the lawful
demand;
iii) the woman was subjected to such
cruelty by her husband or any relation
of her husband."
7. 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:-
"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
4
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.
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
5
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
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
6criminal 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
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.”
8. It appears from the materials in the case diary that the
allegations are general in nature and the ingredients to
constitute the offences alleged are prima facie not present in
respect of the petitioners herein and as such the proceeding is
liable to be quashed in the interest of Justice.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in
considering the materials on record, it appears that the
allegation are general in nature and do not constitute
ingredients required to make the offence as alleged in the
present case against the petitioners herein.
7
10. Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant has also
fairly submitted that parties are now divorced and have moved
on in life.
11. CRR 1425 of 2023 is thus allowed.
12. The proceeding arising out of Nabadwip PS case No.120/15,
under Sections 498(A)/323/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Nabadwip, Nadia, is hereby quashed in respect of the
petitioners namely Krishnendu Ganguly, Durga Sarkar@
Ganguly, Tushar@ Samir Haldar and Ashima Sarkar@ Haldar.
13. All connected Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
15. Copy of this Order be sent to the learned Trial Court for
necessary compliance.
16. Urgent certified website copy of this Order, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )
[ad_1]
Source link