CRR 2030 of 2016
Smt. Rina Nath
The State of West Bengal Anr.
Mr. Debasish Ray
Mr. Avik Ghatak
ar Mr. Rakesh Poddar
… For the Petitioner
Mr. Sarayati Datta
Mr. Madhusudan Sur
… For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept on record.
In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the defacto complainant.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying
for quashing of the proceedings of G.R Case no. 873 of 1995, pending before the Court of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, arising out of Rajarhat Police Station Case
No. 151/1995 dated 18.6.1995 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, on
the grounds that the petitioner, Smt. Rina Nath, is completely innocent and in no way
connected with the commission of the alleged offence and has been falsely tagged with the
instant case out of grudge and ill motive.
Mr. Debasish Ray, learned advocate for the petitioner, has pointed out that the
petitioner being the youngest sister of her brother accused or youngest sister-in-law of the
defacto-complainant was married in the year 1988 and since then she has been putting in the
housing complex in Thakurpukur, P.S.
Behala. In 1993 her brother married the defacto-complainant and on 30.11.1994 the
complainant gave birth to a male child and she returned with her 2½ years old child to her
matrimonial home on 17.1.1995. It is alleged that on 23.1.1995 her husband and elder
brother-in-law started inflicting physical torture upon her and on 28.1.1995 which compelled
the complainant to come to her paternal home on 29.1.1995 being driven out from her
matrimonial home. She returned to her matrimonial home on 10.2.1995, on being pursued
by her husband, her father, brother and brother-in-law but finally driven out by the accused
persons on 15.4.1995, as alleged. After two months of waiting, she filed a written complaint
to the local police station, being the F.I.R dated 18.6.1995, “Annexure-P1”.
I have gone through the F.I.R which reflects no specific allegation against the
petitioner for having committed crime under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to a decision in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Anr., reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 and
my attention is invited to the observation made in paragraph 25 which read as follows:-
“25. However, we deed it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be
misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the
complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would
be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands
does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused
specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the
legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in
the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which
would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of
the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental
torture of the complainant wife. It is th well-settled principle laid down in cases too
numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court
would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law.
Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of
quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses
commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie
discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the
instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething
problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial
Learned advocate for the petitioner has further referred to a decision in the case of
Neelu Chopra Anr. Vs. Bharti, reported in (2009)10 SCC 184 in paragraphs 9 10
where it has been observed thus:-
“9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the
language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. 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 committing of that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to
which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these
appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as
the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already
expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the
prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on
the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the
Yet learned advocate for the petitioner relied on a decision in the case of Preeeti
Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr., reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 and the
observation made in paragraph 28 to this effect that on considering of the averments made in
the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the
complaint, no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint was made out as
none of the witnesses alleged any role of the appellants.
Taking note from the above decisions learned advocate for the petitioner has prayed
for quashing of the case vide Charge Sheet No. 106/1995 dated 30.7.1995 under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate for the State on the contrary has pointed out that the charge sheet
has been submitted against the accused persons but due to absence of the accused persons,
charge could not be framed by the learned Magistrate and trial could not be proceeded and
this is how there was a delay attributed by the accused persons in the speedy trial of the case.
WPA has been issued subsequently. It appears from the last order sheet annexed to this
application that 25.11.2016 was fixed for appearance and execution report of WPA.
Learned advocate for the State has invited my attention to the case diary containing
statement of one of the witnesses. I find on perusal of the written complaint that there is no
specific allegation against this petitioner. There is no dispute that she was not married in the
year 1988. As a married lady she is expected to be in her matrimonial home and admittedly
resides in her matrimonial home at Takhurpukur, Behala which is far from the matrimonial
home of the defacto complainant.
Bearing in mind the observations made in the above cited decisions and in
consideration of the guidelines as embodied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parvat Bhai
Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat Anr., reported in 2017(9) SCC 641 I am of the considered view
that this is a fit case to countenance to the prayer of the petitioner as there is no specific
allegation levelled against her by the defacto complainant and in my view continuance of the
criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
Accordingly, the petitioner, Smt. Rina Nath, is entitled to discharge from the case. As
a result, the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 873 of 1995 be quashed as against this petitioner.
CRR 2030 of 2016 is thus allowed.
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance
of all formalities.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)