SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Biswajit Singha Roy & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 22 May, 2019

FormNo.J(1)

INTHEHIGHCOURTATCALCUTTA
CriminalRevisionalJurisdiction

Present:

TheHon’bleJusticeMadhumatiMitra

C.R.R.3472of2018

BiswajitSinghaRoyAnr.

Vs.

TheStateofWestBengalAnr.

With
CRAN1152of2019

AdvocateforthePetitioners:Mr.ApalakBasu,
Mr.SarosijDasgupta,
Ms.SutapaMitra

Advocatefortheoppositepartyno.2:Mr.AnirbanTarafdar,
Ms.RumiChakraborty

AdvocatefortheState:Mr.RanaMukherjee,Ld.A.P.P.

Ms.DebjaniSahu

Judgmenton:22.05.2019

MadhumatiMitra,J.:

ThepetitionershaveapproachedthisCourtbyfilingan

applicationunderSection482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure

prayingforquashingoftheproceedingsbeingG.R.CaseNo.1063of

2018arisingoutofBaranagarPoliceStationCaseNo.123of2018
2

datedFebruary24,2018underSections498A/Section406/Section506/Section34ofthe

IndianPenalCodependingbeforethelearnedAdditionalChief

JudicialMagistrate,Barrackpore,North24Parganas.

Thepresentpetitionersaretheparents-in-lawofthepresent

oppositepartyno.2.Theoppositepartyno.2isthedefacto-

complainantofthecriminalproceedingspendingbeforethelearned

Magistrate.

Brieffactsofthecasewhichledthepresentpetitionerstofile

thepresentapplicationforquashingofthecriminalproceedings

pendingbeforethelearnedMagistratemaybenarratedhereunder:-

Thepresentoppositepartyno.2beingthedaughter-in-lawof

thepresentpetitionerslodgedanFIRagainstthepetitionersandtheir

sononFebruary24,2018withBaranagarPoliceStationwhereinthe

oppositepartyno.2statedthatshewasmarriedtoBiprajitSinha

Roy,sonofthepresentpetitionersonMay3,2015underthe

provisionsofSectionSpecialMarriageAct.Theirsocialmarriagewas

solemnizedon18.11.2015andsincethenshestartedtoresideather

matrimonialhome.

Ithasbeenstatedbythecomplainantthatatthetimeof

marriageherfathergavevaluablearticlesas”stridhan”toher

husbandandFIRcontainedaseparatelistof”stridhan”articles.She

hasallegedthatduringherstayathermatrimonialhomeshewas
3

subjectedtocrueltyandtorture.Beingfailedtobear

physical/mentaltortureshelefthermatrimonialhomeonFebruary

3,2016.Thecomplainanthasfurtherstatedthatshewassuffering

fromtraumaandshesoughtforassistanceofSWAYAM,anNGO.She

lodgedageneraldiaryatBelghoriaPoliceStationonMarch05,2017.

ThereaftershelodgedawrittencomplaintwiththeWestBengal

MahilaCommissiononFebruary20,2017.Ithasbeenspecifically

allegedintheFIRthatherhusbandmadeaconspiracywithhis

familymembersandmarriedherwithaviewtograbher”stridhan”

articles.

OnthebasisoftheFIRlodgedbytheoppositepartyno.2,

BaranagarPoliceStationCaseNo.123of2018datedFebruary24,

2018underSections498A/Section406/Section506/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode

wasstartedagainsttheFIRnamedaccusedpersons.Investigation

endedinsubmissionofchargesheetagainsttheFIRnamedaccused

persons,namely,thepresentpetitionersalongwiththeirsonfor

commissionofallegedoffencespunishableunderSections

498A/Section406/Section506/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode.

Thepetitionershaveprayedforquashingoftheproceedings

initiatedonthebasisoftheFIRlodgedbytheoppositepartyno.2on

thegroundthattheyhavebeenfalselyimplicatedintheinstantcase

andnospecificallegationhasbeenmadeoutagainstthemintheFIR.
4

Ihavecarefullygonethroughthematerialsplacedonrecord.I

havealsoperusedthejudgmentsascitedattheBar.Ihave

consideredtherivalsubmissionsasmadebylearnedAdditional

PublicProsecutor,learnedadvocateappearingforthepetitionersas

alsolearnedadvocateappearingfortheoppositepartyno.2.Ihave

alsoconsultedwiththecasediary.

Duringthecourseofhearinglearnedadvocateappearingfor

thepetitionershascontendedthatthemainpurposeoflodgingthe

FIRagainstthepetitionersbytheoppositepartyno.2istoharass

themunnecessarily.HehasinvitedtheattentionoftheCourttothe

dateoflodgingtheFIRandcontendedthattheFIRwaslodgedonly

onFebruary24,2018thoughasperherownstatementmadeinthe

FIRthecomplainantlefthermatrimonialhomeonFebruary3,2016.

Ithasbeenstronglycontendedthattheallegationscontainedinthe

FIRarenotonlyfalsebutalsosuppressionofmaterialfacts.Hehas

drawntheattentionoftheCourttothedateoflodgingtheFIRand

submittedthattheFIRwaslodgedafterfilingofMatrimonialsuitby

thesonofthepetitionerson30.01.2017asreflectedintheFIR.It

hasbeenspecificallycontendedbyLearnedAdvocateforthe

petitionersthatthecomplainantmadecomplaintsbeforedifferent

forumafterinitiationofMatrimonialsuitandthosecomplaintsalso

donotdiscloseanyspecificallegationsagainstthepetitioners.

Ithasbeensubmittedonbehalfofthepetitionersthatthe

complainantmarriedtheirsonbysuppressingthefactthatacriminal
5

caseispendingagainsther.Learnedadvocatehasalsodrawnthe

attentionoftheCourttothestatementsmadebythecomplainant

beforedifferentforumsregardingtheallegedincidentandsubmitted

thatthecomplainantdidnotmakeanyspecificallegationor

aspersionagainstherparents-in-laweitherbeforetheNGO,SWAYAM

orWestBengalMahilaCommission.Moreover,inherwritten

statementfiledinconnectionwithMatrimonialSuitinitiatedbyher

husbandshehasnotmadeanyallegationagainstherparents-in-law.

Accordingtothelearnedadvocateforthepetitionersevenif,allthe

allegationscontainedintheFIRareacceptedtobetrue,eventhenno

offencecouldbemadeoutagainstthepetitioners.Ithasbeen

specificallyarguedthatthereisnojustificationforcontinuationof

thecriminalproceedingsagainstthepresentpetitioners.Insupport

ofhiscontentionlearnedadvocateappearingforthepetitionershas

placedhisrelianceonseveraldecisions.LearnedAdvocateforthe

petitionershascontendedthattheingredientsoftheallegedoffences

asmentionedinthechargesheetaretotallyabsentsofarasthe

presentpetitionersareconcerned.Hehasfurthercontendedthatin

matrimonialdisputethegeneraltendencyistoinvolveallthe

membersofthefamilyofthematrimonialhomeandtomake

exaggeratedallegationsintheFIRorcomplaint.Hehassubmitted

thatinmatrimonialdisputetheCourtshouldscrutinizethe

avermentsoftheFIRwithgreatcareandcircumspectionespecially

againsttherelativesofthehusbandotherwiseinnocentmaybe

victimized.Allegationsofmakingderogatoryremarksandbehaving
6

rudelydonotcomewithinthepurviewofSection498AoftheIndian

PenalCode.

InsupportofhissubmissionsLearnedAdvocateforthe

petitionershasplacedhisrelianceonthefollowingdecisions:-

1)ResaualIslamandanr.Vs.StateofWestBengal

andanr.reportedin(2010)2CCLR(Cal)121;

2)PreetiGuptaAndAnotherVs.StateofJharkhand

AndAnotherreportedin(2010)7SCC667;

3)GeetaMehrotraandAnotherVs.StateofU.P.and

anotherreportedin(2013)1SCC(Cri)120;

4)Rameshandors.Vs.TheStateofT.N.reportedin

(2005)3SCC507;

5)RashmiJainVs.StateofUttarPradeshAnd

anotherreportedin(2014)13SCC553;

6)MadhavraoJiwajiraoScindiaOthersVs.

SambhajiraoChandrojiraoAngreOthers.

reportedin(1988)ISCC692and

7)VineetKumarVs.StateofUttarPradeshreportedin

(2017)13SCC369.

OntheotherhandLearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutor

appearingfortheStateofWestBengalhassubmittedthatthe

allegationsoffactsascontainedintheFIRclearlyconstituteprima

faciecaseagainstthepetitioners.Insupportofhiscontention,hehas
7

drawntheattentionoftheCourttothetreatmentsheetofthe

complainantofPeerlessHospitexHospitalandResearchCenter

Limited,statementsmadebythecomplainantbeforetheChairman,

WestBengalMahilaCommission,intheSWAYAMinformationsheet

andsubmittedthatthosedocumentsclearlyindicatethecommission

ofallegedoffences.

LearnedAdvocateappearingfortheoppositepartyno.2,thatis,

thecomplainanthasstronglycontendedthattheingredientsmaking

outtheprimafaciecaseagainstthepetitionersappeartobeexisting

intheinstantcase.Accordingtohiscontentionthequestionof

quashingoftheproceedingsinrespectoftheparents-in-lawdoesnot

arise.Hehasfurthercontendedthatthegroundstoquashthe

proceedingsasraisedbytheparents-in-lawarethesubjectmatterto

beheardbythetrialcourtforbetterappreciationafterconducting

fulltrial.

Now,IhavetoexaminewhetherthefactsascontainedintheFIR

constituteanyprimafaciecasemakingouttheoffenceagainstthe

parents-in-lawofthecomplainantandwhetherthereisatallany

materialtoconstitutetheoffenceagainstthepetitioners.Admittedly,

chargesheetunderSections498A/Section406/Section506/Section34oftheIndianPenal

Codehasbeensubmittedagainstthepetitionerandtheirson.
8

Fromthematerialsplacedonrecord,aswellasfromthe

submissionsmadebythelearnedadvocatesfortheparties,it

appearsthatthesonofthepetitionersandthecomplainantgot

acquaintedwitheachotherthroughsocialmedia,thatis,Facebook.

Theirmarriagewasanoutcomeoftheirloveaffairs.Theymarried

undertheprovisionsofSectionSpecialMarriageActonMay3,2015.

ThereafteronNovember18,2015theirsocialmarriagewas

solemnizedandsincethenthecomplainantstartedlivingwithher

husbandathermatrimonialhome.Admittedly,thecomplainantleft

hermatrimonialhomeonFebruary03,2016,thatmeansthe

complainantstayedathermatrimonialhomeaboutthreemonths

only.FromthecontentsoftheFIRitappearsthatthecomplainant

hasspecificallyaverredthathermarriagewithherhusbandwas

neverconsummated.IthasbeenallegedinherFIRthatthehusband

ofthecomplainanthadextramaritalaffairsandshewasabusedby

herhusbandwheneversheraisedthatissueandherhusband

threatenedtothrowacidonherface.Herhusbandstartedbeating

herfornoreasonanddemandedhugemoneyforthepurposeof

purchasingoffurnitureandgoldornaments.

IfonegoesthroughtheentireFIRasawholethenitwillbeclear

thatthenamesofthepetitioners,parents-in-lawofthecomplainant

havebeenmentionedinverycursorymanner.Nospecificallegation

hasbeenmadeagainstthem.AllegationscontainedintheFIRagainst
9

themarenotfreefromambiguity.Itsuffersfromvagueness,sofar

thesepetitionersareconcerned.Theoppositepartyno.2hasmade

statementsbeforethedifferentauthoritiesregardingthealleged

incidentondifferentdates.InthisconnectionthelearnedAdditional

PublicProsecutorsubmittedthatthetorturemetedtotheopposite

partyno.2wasofsuchanaturewhichcompelledhertoattemptto

commitsuicideasreflectedinherstatementmadebeforethevarious

authorities.Insupportofhiscontention,hehasdrawntheattention

oftheCourttothetreatmentsheetofthecomplainantatPeerless

HospitexandHospitalPrivateLimited.PlainreadingoftheFIRleaves

nodoubtthatthecomplainantmadespecificallegationsagainsther

husbandonly.Ononeortwooccasionsthenamesofthepetitioners

werementionedintheFIRandthesaidmentioningoftheirnames

wasinverycasualmannerandwithoutmakinganyspecific

allegationagainstthem.ThoseavermentsmadeintheFIRarenot

freefromambiguity.Moreover,inherstatementsascollectedbythe

InvestigatingOfficerduringinvestigationbeforethedifferent

authoritiestheoppositepartyno.2didnotmakeanyspecific

allegationagainstherparents-in-law.Onlytheparentsofthe

complainantmadestatementagainstthepetitionersunderSection

161oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure.

Inthisconnection,itwouldnotbeoutofplacetomentionthe

principlesenunciatedbyourApexCourtinthecaseofR.P.KapurVs.
10

StateofPunjabreportedinAIR1960SC866.Theseprinciplesare

hereunder:

i)Whereitmanifestlyappearsthatthereisalegalbar

againsttheinstitutionorcontinuanceofthe

proceedings;

ii)WheretheallegationsintheFirstInformationReportor

thecomplaint,takenattheirfacevalueandacceptedin

theirentirety,donotconstitutetheoffencealleged;

iii)Wheretheallegationsconstituteanoffence,butthereis

nolegalevidenceadducedortheevidenceadduced

clearlyormanifestlyfailstoprovethecharge.

AgainourApexCourthaslaiddowncertainprinciplesfor

quashingoftheproceedingsinthecaseofStateofHaryana

Ors.-Vs.-Ch.BhajanLalOrs.reportedinAIR1992SC604.

Inparagraph108ofthesaidjudgmenttheHon’bleSupreme

Courtgaveillustrationswhereintheextraordinarypowerunder

SectionArticle226oftheConstitutionortheinherentpowerunder

Section482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurecanbeexercised

bytheHighCourttopreventabuseoftheprocessofanyCourtor

otherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice.

Theillustrationsareasfollows:-

1.WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIRorthecomplaint,

eveniftheyaretakenattheirfacevalueandacceptedintheir
11

entirelydonotprimafacieconstituteanyoffenceormakeout

acaseagainsttheaccused;

2.WheretheallegationsintheFIRandothermaterials,ifany,

accompanyingtheFIRdonotdiscloseacognizableoffence,

justifyinganinvestigationbyPoliceOfficersunderSection

156(1)oftheCodeexceptunderanorderofaMagistrate

withinthepurviewofSection155(2)oftheCode;

3.WheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeintheFIRor

complaintandtheevidencecollectedinsupportofthesame

donotdisclosethecommissionofanyoffenceandmakeout

caseagainsttheaccused;

4.WheretheallegationsintheFIRdonotconstitutea

cognizableoffencebutconstituteonlyanon-cognizable

offence,noinvestigationispermittedbyaPoliceOfficer

withoutanorderofaMagistrateascontemplateunderSection

155(2)SectionoftheCode;

5.WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIRorcomplaintareso

absurdandinherentlyimprobableonthebasisofwhichno

prudentpersoncanevenreachajustconclusionthatthereis

sufficientgroundforproceedingagainsttheaccused;
12

6.Wherethereisanexpresslegalbarengraftedinanyofthe

provisionsSectionoftheCodeortheconcernedAct(underwhicha

criminalproceedingisinstituted)totheinstitutionand

continuationoftheproceedingsand/orwherethereisa

specificprovisioninSectiontheCodeortheconcernedAct,providing

efficaciousredress,forthegrievancesoftheaggrievedparty;

7.Whereacriminalproceedingismanifestlyaccompanied

withmalafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciously

institutedwithanulteriormotiveforwreakingvengeanceon

theaccusedandwithaviewtospitehimduetoprivateand

personalgrudge.

PreviouslyIhaveobservedthatthereisnospecificallegation

againstthepetitionersintheFirstInformationReportexcept

mentioningtheirnamesintheFIRincasualandcursorymanner.

NowhereintheFirstInformationReportitwasallegedthattherewas

demandofdowryatthetimeofmarriagebythepetitioners.Inher

FirstInformationReportthecomplainantstatedthatseveralarticles

weregivenatthetimeofhermarriage,thatis,”stridhan”toher

husband.ThatmeansasperthecontentsoftheFirstInformation

Reportthepetitionerswerenotentrustedwiththe”stridhan”articles

ofthecomplainant.Fromthecasediaryitappearsthat”stridhan”
13

articleswereseizedduringinvestigation.On1stApril,2018the

complainanttookcustodyoftheseizedarticlesonexecuting

zimmanama.

ContentsoftheFIRrevealsthatthecomplainanthasspecifically

allegedthatshewastorturedbyherhusband,shewasthreatenedto

throwacidonherfacebyherhusbandwhensheraisedthequestion

regardingtheextramaritalaffairsofherhusband.

TheallegationsintheFIR,iftakenattheirfacevalueand

acceptedintheirentirelydonotconstituteallegedoffencesunder

Sections498A/Section406/Section506oftheIndianPenalCodeagainstthepresent

petitioners.

Afterconsideringallaspects,Iamoftheviewthatitisafitcase

toexerciseinherentpoweroftheHighCourtunderSection482ofthe

CodeofCriminalProcedureascontinuationofthecriminal

proceedingsagainstthepresentpetitionerswouldbeanabuseofthe

processoftheCourt.

Thus,theproceedingsbeingG.R.CaseNo.1063of2018arising

outofBaranagarPoliceStationCaseNo.123of2018datedFebruary

24,2018underSections498A/Section406/Section506/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode

pendingbeforetheLearnedAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,
14

Barrackpore,North24Parganasinrespectofthepetitioners,namely,

BiswajitSinghaRoyandRitaSinghaRoy,isherebyquashed.

TherevisionalapplicationbeingCRR3472of2018is,therefore,

allowed.

Re:CRAN1152of2019

Inviewoftheorderpassedinconnectionwithrevisional

application,nofurtherorderisrequiredtobepassedinrespectofthe

applicationbeing(CRAN1152of2019)andthesamestands

dismissed.

CopyofthecasediarybehandedovertotheLearnedAdditional

PublicProsecutorimmediately.

UrgentPhotostatcertifiedcopyofthisjudgmentbesuppliedto

theparties,ifappliedfor,uponcompliancewithallformalities.

(MadhumatiMitra,J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation