Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kuntal Panda vs The State Of West Bengal Anr on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1852 of 2020
Kuntal Panda
Vs.
The State of West Bengal Anr.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Debisree Adhikary.
For the State : Mr. Rana Mukherjee,
Mr. Md. Kutubuddin.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Shamal Chakraborty,
Mr. Debajyoti Mondal,
Ms. Anjana Das.
Hearing concluded on : 13.03.2024
Judgment on : 27.03.2024
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of
proceeding being G.R. No. 207 of 2020 arising out of Purulia
(M/Mofussil) Police Station FIR No. 59 of 2020 dated 17.02.2020 under
Sections 498A/325/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Purulia and Charge
Sheet being no. 101/2020 dated 31.05.2020 under Sections
498A/323/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitted against the
Petitioner herein in G.R. No. 207 of 2020 along with Order dated
03.06.2020 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia
Sadar Court in the instant case wherein the Learned Magistrate was
pleased to take cognizance of the offences under Sections
498A/323/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioner
herein.
2. The opposite party no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner, herein after called
‘the husband’ for the sake of brevity.
3. The opposite party no. 2 is working as an Associate Rams Engineer for
last 8 years and is a qualified Electronics and Telecommunication
Engineer whereas her husband/the petitioner is a Computer Engineer by
profession. Their marriage was solemnized in Purulia as per Hindu rites
on 06.03.2018.
3
4. It is stated that after their marriage, the husband (the petitioner) of the
opposite party no. 2 has been subjected to physical cruelty, serious
injury to limbs and organs including threat, verbal abuse, emotional
exploitation and criminal intimidation several times by the opposite party
no. 2/wife. All such incidents of physical torture and blackmailing were
duly reported before the concerned Narayanpur Police Station.
5. Gradually it appeared that the opposite party no.2 is a psychiatric
patient and after great effort of the petitioner/husband, the opposite
party no. 2 agreed to take treatment when she was medically detected by
the psychiatrist with Cluster B personality disorder with
symptoms/problems of anger outburst, mood swings, adverse to sex,
abusive when angry, dyspareunia, i.e. pain with intercourse.
6. The opposite party no. 2 also physically assaulted the petitioner’s
parents on 03.06.2019, and a complaint was duly registered on the same
day in the local police station Narayanpur being GD no. 95.
7. The opposite party no. 2 in conspiracy with her parents has criminally
intimidated the petitioner/husband and his parents that until the
ownership of the residential property/flat at Rajarhat is transferred to
her (opposite party no. 2) the petitioner/husband will continue to suffer
cruelty and was also threatened to face false charge of rape and filing of a
case under domestic violence. Such incident of threat was duly reported
before the Narayanpur Police Station by the petitioner on 02.05.2019.
4
8. On 15.02.2020 the opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial home
on the pretext of visiting her ailing grandmother staying at her paternal
home at Purulia. After reaching her paternal home, the opposite party
no. 2 had whatsapp conversation with the petitioner’s mother and her
husband/the petitioner, wherein she informed that she has reached
home safely. After that on 17.02.2020 at 7.47 p.m. the opposite party
no.2 informed her husband/the petitioner, over WhatsApp, that she is
suffering from fever and will return after a week.
9. Thereafter it came to the knowledge of the accused persons that on
17.02.2020 at 14.45 hours, the opposite party no. 2 had filed a FIR
being no. 59 of 2020 under Sections 498A/325/34/506 of I.P.C. against
her husband/the petitioner and her in laws/relatives of her husband
with Purulia (M/Moufssil) Police Station.
10. The petitioner states and submits that the FIR is completely false and ill
motivated as from the bare reading of the facts narrated in the written
complaint dated 17.02.2020 it is evident that it does not speak of any
offence triable under the provision of Section 498A there being no
ingredients to constitute the said offence.
11. That the written complaint dated 17.02.2020 and/or FIR, neither of it
discloses any specific allegations and the opposite party no. 2 has falsely
alleged that all the accused persons gave her a beating in joint
conspiracy on occasions. Whereas the fact is that the other accused
persons are permanent residents of different Districts.
5
12. It is stated that on the basis of the said impugned Charge Sheet the Ld.
Trial Court vide it’s order dated 03.06.2020 has wrongfully taken
cognizance against the Petitioner/accused persons herein under Sections
498A/323/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. It is further stated that on 03.07.2020 the opposite party no. 2 also
mischievously filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against all the accused
persons including her husband/the petitioner herein which has been
registered as Misc. Case No. 68 of 2020 and the same is pending
adjudication before the Ld. 1st Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been wrongfully and maliciously victimized by the opposite party no.
2 with mal intent of utmost harassment with the intention of wrongfully
grabbing the ownership of Rajarhat flat.
15. On 28.02.2020 the husband/petitioner herein has filed a petition under
Section 13(1) (ia), 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the
dissolution of marriage by a Decree of Divorce before the Ld. District
Judge, Barasat which has been registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 484 of
2020 and the same is pending adjudication before the Ld. 3rd Additional
District Judge, Barasat.
16. It is further submitted that in the light of facts and circumstances of the
case, no purpose would be served by the investigation continuing against
the petitioner and the proceeding is thus liable to be quashed.
6
17. Learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary.
18. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the
case of the opposite party no. 2 is genuine and there is sufficient
materials on record to proceed towards trial against the petitioner and as
such the revision is liable to be dismissed.
19. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, lays down:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-
ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means–
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet demand.
Ingredients of offence.– The essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 498A are as follows:-
(1) A woman was married;
(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in —
(i) Any willful conduct as was likely to drive
such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
7injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether
mental or physical.
(ii) Harm to such woman with a view to coercing
her to meet unlawful demand for property or
valuable security or on account of failure of such
woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful
demand.
(iii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty by
her husband or any relation of her husband.”
20. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Ors. vs. The State of Bihar
Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“Issue Involved
11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions
made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our
considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires
determination in the instant case is whether allegations
made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of
general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be
quashed ?
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and
content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention
that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at
preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her
husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state
intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent
times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also
increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection
and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now,
more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency
to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to
settle personal scores against the husband and his
relatives.
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. Anr; (2018) 10 SCC 472, has
observed:-
8
“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the
laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of
husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when
such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a
woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in
Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to
commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or
danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to
meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern
that large number of cases continue to be filed under
already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime
Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that
most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona
fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and
consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints
lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but
also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
chances of settlement.”
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr; (2014) 8
SCC 273, it was also observed:-
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes
in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly
revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced
with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to
a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives.
The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-
bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst
the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield
by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get
the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.
In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and
grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested.”
15. Further in Preeti Gupta Anr. Vs. State of
Jharkhand Anr; (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been
observed:-
“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of
the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which
9are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine
cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber
of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure
that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be
reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to
a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and
should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic
human problem and must make serious endeavour to help
the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and
tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the
Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead
to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized
by the complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints.
The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close
relations who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal
trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
10common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if
the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely
long and painful.”
16. In Geeta Mehrotra Anr. Vs. State of UP Anr;
(2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-
“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao
vs. L.H.V. Prasad Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held
that the High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation
which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships
observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are
also involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting
it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young”
days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view
taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts
would not encourage such disputes.”
17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was also observed that:-
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the
distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband
should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations
unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out.”
11
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the
increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband
in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked
would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband
when no prima facie case is made out against them.”
And finally the court held:-
“22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if
the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a
trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest
in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s
husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars
upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be
discouraged.”
21. In Abhishek vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1456
of 2015 Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015, on August 31, 2023,
the Supreme Court held:-
“11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the
very outset that the contention that the appellants’ quash
petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any
event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted
before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to
be rejected.
It is well settled that the High Court would continue
to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition
12filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even
when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the
pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. vs.
State of Gujarat and others {(2011) 7 SCC 59}]. This
principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta
and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of
Home and another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This issue,
therefore, needs no further elucidation on our part.
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In
V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of
Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and
others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that
where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly
impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual
arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the
complaint.
In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.330 of
2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this
Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the
power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such
standard not being confused with the norm formulated in
the context of the death penalty.
It was further observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein,
but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by
this Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960
SC 866) and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan
Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court
would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against
them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are
neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty
13abound on this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan
Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and
others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal
with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to
quash a FIR registered for various offences, including
Section 498A IPC.
Noting that the foremost issue that required determination
was whether allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be
quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein
concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC
and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that
false implications by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law.
On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific
allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and
it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of
clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an
abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict
severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought
to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of
Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court
noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints
filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the
Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities
into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as
allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations,
who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant resided, would add
an entirely different complexion and such allegations would
have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the
Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each
and every accused and the role played by each and every
accused in the commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a matrimonial
dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in
Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on
08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely.
It was further observed that it will not be enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes
a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way
of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be
exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:
‘102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
15secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
16the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
22. In the present case, at page 35 is a medical prescription showing
that the petitioner/husband of the opposite party no. 2 was treated
for bite on hand and neck caused by the opposite party no. 2 on
16.12.2018.
23. At page 38 and 39 are medical papers of the opposite no. 2 being
treated by the department of psychiatry and advised for marital
therapy. Several documents have been filed showing that the opposite
party no. 2 has been treated by several psychiatrists, from 2018 to 2020,
prescription dated 22.09.2018 also shows that the opposite party no. 2
has Gross Communication Problem and was also advised marriage
counseling.
24. The marriage was in 2018.
25. The complaint was filed on 17.02.2020 at 14.45 hrs.
26. Whatsapp messages till 7.17 p.m. on 17th February, 2020, show that the
relationship between the complainant and the petitioner’s
mother/opposite party no. 2’s mother-in-law was apparently normal (as
projected by the complainant). She had also informed the
petitioner/husband at 7.47 p.m. that she is suffering from fever and that
she would return after a week.
17
27. From this it is clear that even after filling the complaint, the
complainant continued normal conversation on whatsapp with the
petitioner and his mother.
28. Proceedings under the Domestic violence act has also been initiated by
the opposite party no. 2, wherein she has claimed her right/share in her
husband’s flat at Rajarhat.
29. Some photo copies of photographs relating to the alleged injuries
sustained by the opposite party no. 2 are part of the case diary but there
are no medical papers.
30. Thus from the materials on record including the case diary it is evident
that opposite party no. 2 has been under treatment of a psychiatrist
since 2018, when she got married.
31. Her prescriptions also advise her regarding marital therapy, anger
management, communication problems, sleeping together etc. etc.
32. There are no materials on record to show that the ingredients required to
constitute the offences alleged are present against the petitioner and
permitting such a case to proceed towards trial will be an abuse of the
process of law and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.
33. CRR 1852 of 2020 is allowed.
34. The proceeding being G.R. No. 207 of 2020 arising out of Purulia
(M/Mofussil) Police Station FIR No. 59 of 2020 dated 17.02.2020 under
Sections 498A/325/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Purulia and Charge
18
Sheet being no. 101/2020 dated 31.05.2020 under Sections
498A/323/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, therein in respect of
the petitioner namely Kuntal Panda, is hereby quashed.
35. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
37. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
38. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
Cash for Case Scheme at Purulia (M) West Bengal- ASI Nikhil Pratap Singh seek #BRIBE in false 498a case which is now quashed by HC of Calcutta. Police refuse to take FIR against him Bribe Audio : https://soundcloud.com/sonu-kumar-676244667/nikhil-pratap-singh-seeking-bribe-for-498a Judgement : https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/09/08/calcutta-hc-quashes-complaint-under-section-498a-of-the-ipc-on-lack-of-specific-allegations-scc-blog-legal-research/https://soundcloud.com/sonu-kumar-676244667/nikhil-pratap-singh-seeking-bribe-for-498a