Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raunaq Roy & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 April, 2025
159. 07.04.2025
Bd.
Ct.29 CRR 4509 of 2023
IA No. CRAN 1 of 2024
Raunaq Roy & Anr.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
Ms. Kishwarya Bazaz
Ms. Sarmistha Basak …for the petitioners.
Ms. Baisali Ghoshal
Mr. Indranuj Dutta
Mr. Atanu Basu … for the opposite party no.2.
Mr. Suman De … for the State.
This is an application wherein petitioners have prayed for
quashing the proceeding being New Town P.S. Case No. 288 dated
14.09.2023 punishable under sections 448/342/323/427
/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner no. 1, is the son, and petitioner no. 2, is the wife of
the defacto-complainant opposite party no. 2, who are residing in
respective floors of the same building. Petitioners submit that they
are innocent and are no way connected with the alleged offence.
Their further case is that opposite party no. 2 used to torture
petitioner no. 2 both physically and mentally and degree of torture
increased from 2012 when construction of residential building
started and petitioner no. 2 failed to fulfill the demand of dowry
made by opposite party no. 2.
The petitioner no. 2 herein initiated one complaint which got
registered as New Town P.S. Case No. 411/2021 dated
18.11.2021 under sections 498A/420/406 of the Indian Penal
2
Code read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against
opposite party no. 2 herein, which is still pending for disposal.
Petitioners submit that present case of opposite party no. 2 is
the counterblast of the said case. Petitioners further case is that
the sole intention of the opposite party no. 2 is to siphon off
money from petitioner no. 2 and since petitioner no. 1 did not
succumb to his desire, he has also been falsely implicated. The
complainant herein also allegedly transferred huge sum of money
from the petitioners’ bank account to his own account as it was
under the control of opposite party no. 2.
It is further alleged that opposite party no. 2 herein had now
stated resorting to different kinds of torture, whereby he and his
sister prevented petitioner no. 2 from entering the kitchen and
collecting drinking water and also started harassing the
petitioners by locking the common terrace and obstructing the
technicians from installation of internet connection. He further
submits that the essential ingredients that are required to
constitute aforesaid offences are totally absent in the present facts
and circumstances of the case and accordingly prayed for
quashing of the said proceeding.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-
complainant raised strong objection contending that the
investigation has already been culminated into a charge-sheet and
from the charge-sheet it appears that the petitioners herein, who
are accused were closely interrogated and on interrogation they
admitted their guilt and made an apology and for which he did
not arrest them. He further submits that they have filed Naraji
3
petition against the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating
Officer.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the
case diary and leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court but
submits that the statement of witnesses made under section 161
of Cr.P.C. corroborated the statement of FIR.
I have considered the submissions made by all the parties.
On perusal of the FIR it appears that allegations leveled in the FIR
is that complainant is a senior citizen and he is apprehending
that on any day any untoward incident may take place within the
said property at the behest of his son and he is also feeling
insecured, frightened and fearful in presence of his son in the said
property as the said son i.e., petitioner no. 1 herein is insisting
heavily for executing deed in his favour in respect of the property
owned by him.
On perusal of the materials collected during investigation it
also appears that the police has recorded statement of three
witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which states that there
is allegation that the opposite party no. 2 is the owner of the
property and his son and wife are insisting him for transferring
the said property in their favour and for which they are inflicting
physical and mental torture upon him since 2018.
Therefore the contents of FIR and the other materials
collected during investigation clearly indicates that the dispute is
purely a personal one between the family members, which are
more civil in nature. Previously petitioner no. 2 herein initiated
one criminal proceedings and another case under the provisions
4
of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against
the complainant herein.
In the case lodged under the Act of 2005, petitioner no. 2
herein already obtained restraint order against complainant
herein from committing domestic violence upon opposite party
no.2 herein along with right of residence in the shared household.
In my opinion there may be some little matrimonial and
personal skirmishes and quarrels among the family members
which does not warrant for criminal prosecution. This is also
because a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Except
the bald statement that the petitioners inflicted torture as
complainant refused to execute deed in their favour, nothing else
indicating their involvement in the crime is mentioned. It is well-
settled that in order to lodge a proper complaint, 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 of that offence and mere
mention of the sections or language of those sections is not be all
and end all of the matter. Under such circumstances, it would be
an abuse of process of law to allow the instant prosecution to
continue against the petitioners herein on the basis of vague and
general complaint, which is completely silent about the precise
criminal acts of the petitioners.
CRR 4509 of 2023 is hereby allowed and as such New Town
P.S. Case No. 288 dated 14.09.2023 under sections
448/342/323/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code stands
quashed.
5
However, this quashment order will not prevent the opposite
party no. 2 from making appropriate prayer before the competent
authority under the provision of Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2017, if advised subject to other
provisions of law.
In view of disposal of the main application being CRR 4509 of
2023, the connected application being CRAN 1 of 2024 also
stands disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link