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.)