In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
The Hon’ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.
CRR No. 317 of 2019
Debasish Das Anr.
The State of West Bengal Anr.
For the petitioners : Mr. Debanshu Ghori, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binay Kumar Panda, Adv.
Ms. Puspita Saha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Debasis Kar, Adv.
Mr. Arka Chakraborty, Adv.
Judgement on : 09.04.2019
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. Case No.501 of 2018,
arising out of Ghola Police Station Case No.50/18 dated 01.02.2018 under
Section 498A/323/326/325/354B/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.
The contention raised by the revisionists in this case was that a property
dispute was attempted to be colourised by initiating a criminal proceeding with
an aim to harass the revisionists/petitioners capitalising such property dispute.
According to revisionists, pending proceeding was purposive, oppressive frivolous
and mala fide one.
Learned advocate for the private opposite party No.2 (de facto complainant)
submitted that when chargesheet had been submitted in this case collecting
sufficient materials against the revisionists, the instant proceedings should not
be allowed to be quashed without holding a trial.
Learned advocate, Mr. Panda representing State of West Bengal producing
the copy of the materials already collected in the CD submitted that sufficient
materials had been there to reveal a prima facie case against the accused
persons, and thus contended that there could not be any quashment of the
instant proceeding, as sought for by revisionists, ignoring the prima facie
materials being collected against them.
Admittedly Chandana Das (de facto complainant) being wife of Pradip Das
submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C, which was forwarded to
police for investigation by an order of the Court. Police after investigation
submitted chargesheet against the revisionist/accused persons under Section
498A/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the FIR materials were there to reveal that de facto complainant had
been put to suffer cruelty, harassment and oppression in her in law’s house for
the non-satisfaction of the items presented at the time of marriage of the de facto
complainant by her in laws members. There was further demand of money
which could not be satisfied for the poverty in the parental house of the de facto
complainant. More than once victim was subjected to physical assault, insult,
humilitation and ultimately driven out from her matrimonial home subsequent to
19th January, 2018. The de facto complainant delivered three (3) children after
her marriage, which was solemnised on 4th December, 1997.
Admitted position is that the petitioner No.1 is the younger brother of the
husband of the de facto complainant, while petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of
de facto complainant being wife of petitioner No.1.
After demise of parents-in-law of petitioners and the de facto complainant
as well, trouble in the family cropped up over their property matters.
Learned advocate for the revisionists submitted with much emphasis that
when petitioner No.2 was given marriage with petitioner No.1 on 03.03.01 i.e. 4
years after the marriage of de facto complainant, the petitioner No.2 had no
occasion to receive stridhan articles and to perpetrate cruelty upon the de facto
complainant over demand of money and further to express dissatisfaction with
respect to the items presented at the time of marriage of de facto complainant.
Thus according to revisionists, it was thus quite impossible to perpetrate cruelty
upon the de facto complainant, even after the date of the marriage of petitioner
No.2 with petitioner No.1. Further argument was raised by the revisionists that
the allegation made in the complaint, even if they were taken at their face value,
and accepted their entirety, would not constitute a prima facie offence against
the petitioners, and further that the complaint suffered from absurdity, being
inherently improbable, on the basis of which, there could not be any reasonable
presumption that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
The power under Section 482 is excisable under the following three (3)
(i) to give effect to an order contained in the Code.
(ii) To prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
(iii) To secure the ends of justice otherwise.
While exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P.C, the Court is under an
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 reflective of a property
dispute pending between the parties. Parties to this case were also at variance
with over the pension drawn by their deceased mother-in-law. There is existence
of two other cases, one under Section 107 Cr. P.C and another under Section 144
Cr. P.C pending between the parties transpiring animosity between the parties.
Existence of animosity alone neither would establish mala fide, nor frivolous as
regards pending proceeding when contrary version surfaced during in
investigation collecting prima facie materials. Property dispute giving rise to
animosity between the parties may give rise to some sort of defence, which might
be put up as defence during trial, but the same can not be taken to be ground for
There were materials collected during the course of investigation to reveal
that the de facto complainant received insult, physical assault etc. in the hands
of revisionists/petitioners. It came to be surfaced further that such perpetration
of cruelty were made to deprive the de facto complainant from her ancestral
property. Upon consideration of the materials together with the rival
submissions, raised by the parties to this case, the Court is of the view that
sufficient materials were there for proceeding against the petitioners.
True it is that petitioner No.2 found her access to her matrimonial home
where de facto complainant also lived together, four (4) years after the marriage
of de facto complainant, that does not necessarily mean that petitioner No.2 had
no occasion to perpetrate any crime even after being married, more particularly
in a case where the de facto complainant left her matrimonial home under a
compelling circumstances after being tortured and oppressed by the petitioners
spending there continues period of more than 20 years in the matrimonial home.
The revisionists/petitioners are not remediless at the moment, because
enough opportunities are left upon before them to raise the issue, now raised, at
the time of conducting trial.
Regard being had to the materials collected during investigation, as
produced, it cannot be concluded with all certainty that by putting up the
petitioners to trial upon rejecting their prayer for quashing, there will be an
abuse of the process of Court.
The revisional application fails being without any merits. Liberty is
however, given to revisionists to raise the points, now raised at the time of trial.
The learned Trial Jude shall address all the issues, if any raised by the
revisionists, in accordance with law, giving sufficient opportunity to either of the
parties to this case.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this, if applied for, be given to the
appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)