CRR 3757 of 2014
Atanu Ghosh ors.
State of West Bengal anr.
Mr. U. S. Chattopadhyay,
Ms. Snigdha Saha,
…for the petitioners.
Mr. Imran Ali,
…for the State.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
who has contended that the FIR itself does not disclose any overt act
alleged to have been committed by the present petitioners. The present
petitioners are the maternal uncle-in-law and aunt. Admittedly, they are
residing at Dum Dum within the North 24 Parganas district, whereas the
alleged incident took place within the jurisdiction of Uttarpara P.S. It is
not disputed that the present accused persons are residing in separate
mess and in separate houses and that place is far away from the de-facto
complainant’s house. From the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.
P.C., it does not transpire regarding any ingredient of offence either under
Section 498A or 406 I.P.C. Only statement that has appeared against
them from the prosecution witnesses that all these all these accused
persons induced the mother-in-law to commit the offence. They have not
stated specifically what type of inducement that has been done.
So, in my view, no offence has been made out against the present
petitioners. It has been noticed, more often than not, that there is a
tendency to entangle all the relations in any kind of matrimonial dispute.
This practice has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court also in
many occasions. Therefore, it would be sheer abuse of process to
continue with this case in respect of these accused persons only.
Accordingly, the CRR stands allowed.
The proceeding bearing G.R. case no. 573 of 2013 arising out of
Uttarpara P.S. case no. 165 of 2013 be quashed in respect of the present
petitioners, namely, Atanu Ghosh, Biswnath Ghosh, Tarun Kanti Ghosh
and Smt. Chhabi Ghosh.
However, I make it clear that the proceeding in respect of other
accused persons shall go on.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given
to the parties.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )