Calcutta High Court Dilip Kumar Manna-vs-State Of West Bengal on 15 December, 2005
Equivalent citations:2006 (1) CHN 370
Author: A K Bhattacharya
Bench: A K Bhattacharya
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.
1. The hearing stems from an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.366 of 2003 (arising out of Contai P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003 dated 26.09.2003) as also the chargesheet filed on 16.10.2003 pending in the Court of ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai.
2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that Smt. Nandita Manna lodged a complaint inter alia stating that she had a love affair with the present petitioner for about a year prior to her marriage with him by registration on 23.11.97 followed by marriage according to Hindu rites and customs, and in that wedlock a son was born. During her stay in her in-laws’ house the petitioner demanded her to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father, and as she did not agree with the said demand, she was subjected to ill-treatment and torture, both physically and mentally by him. The petitioner also did not arrange for proper medical treatment of her son. On account of the said continuous torture, she suffered from mental disease. The petitioner instead of making arrangement for her medical treatment left her in her father’s house. After her proper medical treatment arranged by her father when she returned to the house of the petitioner, the latter further subjected her to ill-treatment and torture due to her refusal to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father. He developed an illicit relation with the maid-servant, and on being protested by her he used to torture upon her. On threatening that he would kill her and her son, he obtained her signatures on blank papers and also a suicidal note from her. She was ultimately driven out from her house, for which she was compelled to take shelter in her father’s house. On the basis of the said FIR, Contai P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003 dated 26.09.2003 under Section 498A/323/384 IPC was started against the present petitioner, and after completion of investigation the police submitted chargesheet against him under the aforesaid provisions.
3. Being aggrieved by filing of the said chargesheet, the petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing the proceeding.
4. Mr. Samiran Giri, ld.Counsel for the petitioner, on referring to the document relating to opening of LIC policy for a sum of Rs. 1,00, 000/- in the name of the wife contended that on the face of such document the story of ill-treatment and torture by the petitioner upon his wife does not prima facie stand, and since chargesheet against his client was submitted without proper investigation, the proceeding should be quashed. Mr. Ashim Roy, ld. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Court at this stage is only to consider whether the allegations made out in the report in the final form constitute a cognisable offence and not whether the allegations levelled are false or true which is a matter for trial and as such there is no scope for entertaining the present application.
5. Now, quashing of proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice may be done where: (1) it appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged e.g. absence of requisite sanction, or (2) the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, or (3) the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,
and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, . It
is to be borne in mind that the power to quash an FIR by this Court can be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. At this stage the Court cannot inquire about reliability or genuineness or, otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR nor it can inquire whether the allegations are likely to be established or not, as was held in the case of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 118 at 123. In State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, , it was observed:
Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinize the FIR chargesheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of the rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence. After the investigation is concluded and the chargesheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the chargesheet. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance…. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out no further act could be done except to quash the chargesheet… .
6. In the case on hand, a glance to the materials including FIR and chargesheet placed before the Court prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner, and accordingly the question of quashing the proceeding does not arise at all.
7. In the premises, the present application being devoid of any merit be dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent down at once to the ld.Court below.