Court No. 42
Item No. 17
C.R.R. 3059 of 2018
Kamal Saha Ors.
The State of West Bengal Anr.
Mr. Debapratim Guha.
… For the Petitioners.
The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the
proceeding of Manicktala Police Station Case No. 134 of 2017 dated May 5, 2017
under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, (G.R. Case No. 1294 of 2017) pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah.
It is submitted by Mr. Debapratim Guha, the learned advocate for the petitioners
that these petitioners are in-laws of the de-facto complainant and they are
totally innocent and they are in no way connected with the offence alleged
against them nor there are any such ingredients of offence under Section 498A
I.P.C. against them. In support of his submission, Mr. Guha relied on decisions
of Geeta Mehrotra Anr. -versus- State of Uttar Pradesh Anr. reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta Anr. -versus- State of Jharkhand Anr.
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667.
I have considered the submissions of learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners and have gone through the instant petition and the documents annexed
It is evident from the F.I.R. that the de-facto complainant has raised an
allegation of cruelty, demand of dowry etc. against her husband and her in-laws
alleging that her in-laws aided and abetted her husband in the commission of
such offence. It is true that the names of the in-laws has not been mentioned in
the FIR but I do not find merit in the claim of the learned advocate for the
petitioners that the FIR do not disclose any such ingredients of offence either
under Section 498A I.P.C. or under Dowry Prohibition Act. Moreover, FIR need not
be an encyclopedia of all the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution
relies. The main purpose of the FIR is to satisfy the police officer as to the
commission of a cognizable offence for him to conduct further investigation in
accordance with law. This case is at the early stage of investigation and these
petitioners on their own have already surrendered before the court below and are
now on bail. The decisions of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) and Preeti Gupta (Supra)
are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and the submission of
the learned advocate for the petitioners, I find no merit in the instant
revision at this stage.
In result, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the petitioner
expeditiously upon compliance of necessary formalities in this regard.
(Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)