MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

498A Quash with 482 CrPC – Father file 498A againsts daughters wish

Calcutta High Court
(Appellete Side)

Bablu Sardar & Ors

vs

Unknown on 31 January, 2011

Author: Kanchan Chakraborty

C.R.R. 2724 of 2010 With C.R.A.N 3235 of 2010(compromise appln.) With C.R.A.N 214 of 2010 (Extn. Of int. order)

In the matter of : Bablu Sardar & Ors. …. petitioner.

Mr. Navnil De …….. for the petitioners.

Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee ……..for the O. P/wife

Mr. S. K. Mallick ……..for the State.

The C. R. A. N application being C. R. A. N No. 3235 of 2010 is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on day’s list.

The service upon respondent no. 3, Dibendu Chowdhury sought to be effected by registered post with A/D despatched on 10-09-2010. The A/D. Card has been returned back after service. None appears for the opposite party no. 3.

Mr. Navnil De, learned advocate appears for the petitioners. Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee, learned advocate appears for the opposite party/wife Dipanjali Sardar nee Chowdhury and Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned advocate appears for the State.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for Dipanjali Sardar nee Chowdhury submits that the criminal action, which has been registered as G. R. Case No. 1099 of 2010 arising out Chittaranjan P. S. Case No. 21 dated 11- 07-2010 under Sections 498A/504/566/379/34 of I.P.C against the petitioners was initiated by the father of the opposite party no. 2 Dipanjali, wife of the petitioner no. 1 Bablu Sardar against will and knowledge of Dipanjali, who still has been living in her matrimonial house happily with her husband, Bablu and other inmates i. e. other petitioners. She tried her best to restrain her father Dibendu Chowdhury for not to proceed with the case without any reason. She also informed higher police officials in writing stating therein that since her father Dibendu did not accept her marriage with the opposite party/husband Bablu Sardar, he lodged the case falsely against the husband and in-laws.

See also  CHILD ACCESS & VISITATION GUIDELINES for Maharashtra

Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits further that Dipanjali and ors. filed an application in this Court praying for quashing of the proceeding as the entire case is false and mala fide. Since the offences under Section 498A I. P. C is not compoundable, the criminal action pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol be quashed.

Mr. Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that no offence under Section 498A has been committed by the petitioners. The allegations and aspirations put forth in the petition of complaint filed by Didendu Chowdhury, father of Dipanjali is entirely false.

Dipanjalil herself has come forward and filed two applications being C. R. A. N NO. 3235 of 2010 and C. R. A. N 214 of 2010 together with the present petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding pending against the present petitioners on the ground that none but her father being angry with her marriage with petitioner no. 1, Bablu has initiated that action against the petitioners. Therefore, the principle laid down in B. S. Joshi’s case[ 2003 S.C.C (Cri) 848] is squarely applicable in this case.

Mr. De appearing for the petitioners also submits that there is no dispute, whatsoever, between Dipanjali and the present petitioners. The petition of complaint has been lodged falsely in order to harass the petitioners because Dibendu Chowdhury, father of Dipanjali did not accept the marriage between Dipanjali and Bablu.

Petitioner no. 1, Bablu Sardar is personally present in court. On questioning, he submitted that since his father-in-law has not accepted his marriage with Dipanjali and has filed this criminal case against them falsely beyond the knowledge of Dipanjali. Dipanjali had tried her best to resist her father, but failed. She also informed high police officials about the falsity of the case, but her efforts were proved futile. So, she has filed two criminal applications jointly with the present petitioners stating everything and supporting the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding pending in the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Asansol.

See also  Whether relief claimed constitute cause of action?

The inherent power of this High Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C is limitless. Therefore, the utmost care and caution is required while invoking such prayer. It appears from the applications as well as from the submissions of Mr. De, Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Mallick that there was no dispute between Dipanjali and her husband as well as the in-laws at any point of time. It also reveals that Dibendu Chowdhury, the father of Dipanjali did not accept the marriage of Dipanjali and Bablu.

This criminal action was taken by him in order to harass the petitioners. Since, there is no dispute at all between the husband and wife and in-laws which is admitted by the opposite party State and opposite party no. 2 Dipanjali, there is, virtually, no chance of conviction if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue.

Mr. De submits that the case is still under investigation and no report under Section 173 of Cr. P. C has yet been filed. Therefore, the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol has not yet taken cognizance of any offence on any such report in respect of the offence alleged.
The Officer-in-Charge of Chittoranjan Police Station was informed by Dipanjali by a letter dated 02-08-10 stating the entire fact therein( annexures in page 37 & 38).

That being the fact and circumstances behind the criminal action in question, I think that continuance of this criminal proceeding will be amounting to an abuse of the process of the court. This is a perfect case, where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C for the advancement of justice. Herein, the provisions of Section 320 Cr. P. C will not come in the way in exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code by this Court as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. S. Joshi’s case( Supra ).

See also  Whether Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Means Rigorous Imprisonment For Life?

Accordingly, I allow the prayer. Let the criminal proceeding in Chittoranjan P. S Case No21 dated 11-07-10 arising out of G. R. Case No. 1099 of 2010 against the petitioners be quashed.

The revisional application being C. R.R. 2724 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main criminal revision, all the related applications being C. R. A. N No. 3235 of 2010 & C.R.A.N No. 214 of 2010 are disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be communicated to the Officer-in-Charge, Chittaranjan Police Station as well as to the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol as expeditiously as possible.

Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties with usual undertaking.

( Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  When court should not stay execution of decree?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation