In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
The Hon’ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.
CRR No. 293 of 2019
Bhabani Prasad Mali
State of West Bengal Anr.
For the petitioner : Mr. Avik Datta, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda, Adv.
Ms. Puspita Saha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.2 :Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Adv.
For Judgment : 23.04.2019
Subhasis Dasgupta, J:-
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure praying for quashing of a criminal proceeding being FIR No. 4 of
2018 dated 16.02.2018, Chandrapur Police Station under Sections
498A/493/417/307/323/506/354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code now
pending before the Court of ACJM Suri, Birbhum.
Learned advocate for the revisionist/husband sought for quashing of
the proceeding referred hereinabove alleging that the instant criminal
proceeding, initiated by the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2/wife,
was nothing but a counter blast of civil suit being Title Suit No. 7 of 2018,
filed by revisionist/husband against opposite party No.2/wife praying for
declaration that the alleged marriage, said to be held on 05.04.2016 under
Special Marriage Act 1954 between the parties, as null and void. The
revisionist having denied the alleged marriage, instituted the aforesaid civil
suit, which is pending for adjudication. According to petitioner, the
opposite party No.2 admittedly received summons of the pending suit, and
thereafter initiated the instant proceeding implicating revisionist and his
family members with some cooked up materials, and if such proceeding
was not allowed to be quashed, it was proposed, that it would be a glaring
instance of perversity. The ingredients fell sort of the offence, complained
of, in the in the instant proceeding, and accordingly it was submitted by
the revisionist, that the instant proceeding should be quashed being wholly
unsanctioned by law. The instant proceeding, according to revisionist, was
purposive, vexatious and mala fide as well, which if allowed to be
continued, would lead to abuse the process of the Court.
Learned advocate for the opposite party No.2 submitted that police
had already submitted chargesheet against the accused persons making
out a prima facie after collection of sufficient materials therefor, and when
the chargesheet had already been submitted, it would be not wise to allow
the quashing, as proposed by the revisionist. Thus, according to opposite
party/ de facto complainant, the revisionist/husband being a civic
volunteer, engaged by the police administration of the district concerned,
developed of love affairs with the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2,
and co-habitated with her a good number of times promising her to marry
subsequently giving due recognition therefor. Since there was some
problem faced by the revisionist/husband, the marriage between the
parties was held under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, and
accordingly a marriage certificate was issued thereunder. At the time of
marriage held under the provision of the Special Marriage Act, the parents
of the de facto complainant gave Rs.2,75,000/- together with other
valuables as per demand of the revisionist and his family members, but the
parents of de facto complainant failed to satisfy further demand of
Rs.5,00,000/- as further dowry together with other valuable items, when it
was given to understand that de facto complainant would not be accepted
as duly weded wife of petitioner giving her due recognition, unless the
further demanded amount was liquidated.
The instant title suit praying for annulment of the marriage was filed
against the de facto complainant/opposite party even after enjoying de
facto complainant for a considerable period of time with a promise to marry
her, and it was purposefully filed simply to put pressure upon the de facto
complainant, so that she could not dare to enforce her marriage certificate
before the competent authority established under the law.
Thus according to opposite party/wife, the instant proceeding was
not at all a purposive, vexatious and mala fide, as alleged by the
revisionist, and rather it was filed by the de facto complainant simply for
redressing her grievance for being a victim of circumstances at the instance
The learned advocate Mr. Panda, representing the State/opposite
parties strongly opposed submitting that there could not be any quashing
in the given set of facts, which stood ratified by sufficient materials being
collected by the investigating agency during investigation. Thus, according
to State opposite party, sufficient materials had been collected against the
revisionist/petitioner, and without holding a trial, the culpability of the
revisionist could not be effectively determined. The State/opposite party
thus discouraged the prayer quashing, as proposed.
The only question in the given set of facts requiring decision is
whether the instant proceeding, if allowed to be continued any more even
after submission of the chargesheet, would lead to an inevitable inference
that there will be an abuse of the process of the Court or not.
The power for quashment available under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is ordinarily exercisable under three (3) circumstances.
(i) To give effect to an order contained in the Code.
(ii) To prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
(iii) Otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
The revisionist in the instant case was described to be a civic police
volunteer, engaged by concerned district administration of police.
The contention raised in the FIR the that he developed love affairs
with the de facto complainant, started co-habitating with her a good
number of times with a promise to marry subsequently. The de facto
complainant then entered into a marriage with petitioner under the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act with high hope that she would be
given due dignity and recognition shortly after social celebration of her
marriage as per promise of petitioner. At the time of marriage under the
Special Marriage Act, the parents of de facto complainant satisfied the
monetary demand of the petitioner’s family by paying cash money to the
extent of Rs. 2,75,000/- together with other valuables. Subsequently, the
petitioner’s family demanded cash money of Rs. 5,00,000/- from de facto
complainant and her family members, which could not be satisfied, and as
a result thereof marriage could not be held socially. The petitioner even
after marriage, held under the Special Marriage Act, visited the parental
house of de facto complainant a number of times, and established physical
relationship with de facto complainant with a promise of social celebration
of marriage subsequently. When the family members of de facto
complainant visited the house of the petitioner with a proposal for
marriage, the family members of the petitioner felt aggrieved and attacked
the de facto complainant, her father and other member causing injury
them. The de facto complainant also sustained bodily injury on her
person, and her modesty was outraged by the father of the petitioner in the
In terms of the allegations contained in the FIR police held extensive
investigation, and submitted chargesheet making out a case under Section
498A/493/417/307/323/506/354/34 IPC against respective accused
persons involved in this case.
Upon perusal of the statements already collected by the investigating
agency, it appears that the police already collected statement of good
number of people including one Member of Gram Panchayat, who left
materials, supportive of a prosecution for the offence complained of against
the respective accused persons involved in this case. The de facto
complainant/victim herself made statement, which was recorded under
Section 164 Cr. P.C. by the learned Magistrate. The statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim/de facto complainant appears to
have been made in ratification of the contention depicted in the FIR itself.
There could not be any material collected by the investigating agency,
supportive of a prosecution under Section 307 IPC against any of the
accused persons involved therein.
It is settled proposition of law that it is not permissible for the High
Court to appreciate the evidence, as it can evaluate material documents on
record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of
sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused persons and the
Court cannot look into those materials, the acceptability of which is
essentially a matter for trial. However, the law does not prohibit
entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C for quashing the
chargesheet even before the charges are framed, or before the application
of discharge is filed or even during the pendency of such application before
the court concerned. The inherent power, therefore, should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In order to exercise such power
the present court is under obligation to hold an enquiry with respect to the
materials produced to the extent, it is necessary to find it out whether a
prima facie case is made out or not. The materials already collected in the
CD were highly reflection of commission of offence complained of providing
It is true that the de facto complainant admittedly initiated the
instant proceeding after receiving summons of a civil suit wherein the
Special Marriage of the de facto complainant held on 05.04.16 was sought
for annulment of the said marriage. The petitioner/revisionist appears to
be initiator of that civil suit. Though the instant proceeding was alleged to
be a counter blast of the civil suit filed by the revisionist/petitioner, but the
same would not be sufficient enough to encourage the proposed
quashment ignoring the materials already collected during the course of
investigation. Whether the instant proceeding is a counter blast or not, it
may operative as defence to which may be effectively put up during the
trial, but the same cannot be construed to be a good ground for quashing
the proceeding keeping in view the said defence likely to be raised during
the trial by the revisionist.
Upon consideration of the prima facie materials already revealed in
the copy of case diary, it cannot be concluded with all certainty that
instant proceeding is a purposive, frivolous, vexatious and mala fide,
justifying an order encouraging the proposed quashment.
It was given to understand in course of hearing that the copy of the
materials already collected during investigation could not be made
available by supplying the same to revisionist. The revisionist/petitioner,
therefore, is not remediless at the moment, because enough opportunities
are left open before him to raise the issue, now raise at the time of
conducting the trial with much more convenient manner.
Thus, the revisional application fails being without any merits.
Liberty is given to the petitioner to raise points, now raised, at the
time of trial. The learned Trial Judge shall address the issues, if any raised
by the revisionist in accordance with law, giving sufficient opportunity of
hearing to either of the parties to this case.
Learned Court below is directed to consider the applicability of
section of the offences, complained of, at the time of consideration of
charge against the respective accused persons involved in this case in the
context with the materials already collected during the course of
With this observation and direction, the revisional application stands
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with the all
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)