The single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr held that the opposite party/wife never resided with the petitioners and thus the question of being inflicted with cruelty as defined/laid down under Section 498A IPC does not arise.
Brief facts:
The case was filed under Sections 498A/406/325/307/376/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioners. The present revision application is filed by the Petitioners in order to quash the proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the elder son of the Petitioners got married to the opposite party no. 2 and after marriage, they both started living separately from the Petitioners at a rented accommodation. It was further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 498A/406/325/307/376/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, despite having no contact with the petitioners and never living together with them at any point in time, either before or after the death of her husband. Also, the statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 164 of the code of criminal procedure depicts her mala fide intention in falsely implicating the Petitioners in this case.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble High Court relied upon the judgments titled Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors, Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr, Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr, and K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana.
It was observed that the material presented in the case, including the complainant's declaration according to Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. amply demonstrates that the opposite party No. 2/wife never resided with the petitioners. As a result, the issue of whether Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)'s description of cruelty was violated does not come into play. In the current instance, none of the ingredients necessary to constitute the said offence is present.
It was noted that the material presented in the case diary and the accompanying charge sheet does not, on its face, establish that the accused have committed the alleged crimes, and there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. Accordingly, this is an appropriate situation for the court to use its inherent discretion to prevent abuse of the legal system.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court allowed the present application.
Case Title: Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Case No: CRR 261 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advocate Mr. Avishek Bhandari, Mr. Dipayan Dan.
Advocate for the State: Advocate Ms. Rita Dutta.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
