Manju Verma & Ors vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4673 Cal

   148
08.09.2021

Ct.35 AKG CRR 1092 of 2021 With CRAN 2 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)

In Re: - A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 And

In the matter of: Manju Verma & Ors.

.... Petitioners

Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Mr. Syed Khafiz Zamar ...For the Petitioners Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Mr. Arijit Ganguly, ...For the State Mr. Ram Narain Rajak, Mr. Bishwanath Shah

This is an application for quashing of criminal proceeding under

Sections 498A/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4 th Court at

Howrah, arising out of Shibpur Police Station Case No. 217 of 2018.

The case is now pending before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, 4th Court at Howrah. The charge has not yet been framed by

the learned Sessions Judge.

Opposite party no. 2, in this revisional application, is the

wife/victim/de-facto complainant. Petitioner no. 1 is her mother-in-

law, petitioner no. 2 is her sister-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is the

husband of the said sister-in-law.

It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the

petitioners as well as for the opposite party no. 2 that the disputes

between the parties have been amicably settled. The opposite party

no. 2 is now living happily with her husband.

The statement of the victim/wife was directed to be recorded by

this Court, and in compliance with such direction, the recorded

statement has been filed today before this Court. It appears that the

opposite party no. 2 has made a statement that she has settled the

disputes amicably, and she is not willing to proceed with the criminal

case any further against her in-laws.

Let the recorded statement of the victim lady be kept with the

record.

The learned advocate appearing for the State, opposes the

prayer for quashing of proceeding under Section 307 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The charge sheet includes Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and the law with regard to the quashing of a case for

commission of an offence under Section 307 has been authoritatively

settled by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

reported at (2019) 5 SCC 688 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Laxmi Narayan). It was held as follows:-

"15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the

sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

In the present case, it appears that the victim lady in the

complaint made a mere statement that she was physically abused by

the said in-laws and they tried to kill her as well.

In the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused alleged that the petitioners

tried to kill her by throttling. The doctor in his report, however, opined

that the nature of injury 'may be grievous'. Since the medical report

itself suggests that the nature of the injury is doubtful, the statement

recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

is not substantiated. The allegations in the F.I.R., as already

indicated, do not disclose anything specific regarding commission of

offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In my opinion, mere implication of the petitioners under Section

307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, without any cogent evidence

should not stand in the way to quash the proceeding, when the victim

lady herself has expressed her willingness not to proceed with the

said case further.

The dispute is private in nature arising out of the matrimonial

disputes and it has been held in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra) as follows :-

"15.Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;"

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the criminal proceeding

under Sections 498A/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4 th Court

at Howrah arising out of Shibpur Police Station Case No. 217 of 2018

stands quashed.

The revisionsal application being CRR 1092 of 2021 along with

the connected application being CRAN 2 of 2021 are disposed of.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)