Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subham Mahanta & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 March, 2021
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 741 of 2021
Subham Mahanta & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. U.S. Chattopadhyay
Mr. S. Maji
Mr. P. Basak
Heard on : 11.03.2021
Judgment on : 11.03.2021
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in
which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 376 and
417 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits as follows. The defacto complainant filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the Code making certain
allegations against the petitioners that led to the registration of
the first information report. After completion of investigation, a
charge sheet was submitted on 14.02.2020. The petitioner no.1
and the opposite party no.2 are both the engineers. They are
adults and entered into a relationship on mutual consent. The
allegation that the opposite party no.2 was induced by a
promise to marry given by the petitioner no.1 cannot be
sustained in these circumstances. Moreover, the parents of the
petitioner no.1 had hardly any role in this case. In view of the
same, the impugned proceeding ought to be quashed in the
interest of justice.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and have perused the revision petition.
The opposite party no.2 in the first information report,
inter alia, alleged as follows-
In November, 2019 talks took place between the family of
the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 about their
marriage. The individuals and the respective families became
more acquainted with each other. In June, 2019 at the instance
of petitioner nos.2 and 3, the petitioner no.1 went to Calcutta
and asked the opposite party no.2 to come to their place with
all her belongings. On such request, the opposite party no.2
started staying at the place of the petitioners. In fact, the
petitioner no.1 filled up the form for registration of marriage
between the two. In this fashion, the petitioner no.1 gave a
promise to marry and upon such promise, entered into the
physical relationship with the opposite party no.2. 20.09.2019
was fixed as the date for registration of marriage. However, the
petitioner nos.2 and 3 conspired with each other, quarreled
with the opposite party no.2 and forcibly drove out her from
their house. The petitioner no.1 refused to marry the opposite
party no.2 and in fact, on one occasion tried to strangulate her
to death. After the completion of investigation, a charge sheet
was submitted in this case.
It appears from the first information report that the
promise to marry given by the petitioner no.1 preceded the
purported physical relation.
In fact, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 were also involved in
some ways, as per the first information report, inasmuch as the
proposed marriage between the couple was being arranged by
them and at their behest the alleged victim was brought to the
house of the petitioners and after the incident, the petitioner
nos.2 and 3 raised a quarrel and drove the victim out of their
house. The question of their complicity in relation to Section
120B of the Penal Code is a matter that can best be decided
during trial.
The contention of the petitioners that the victim was an
adult woman and an educated one and therefore, could not
have been duped in such fashion by the petitioners is
essentially a disputed question of fact that cannot be decided in
an application for quashing of proceeding.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this
application.
Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for,
be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
rkd
