Saktipada Sannigrahi & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6152 Cal

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
                        APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

                            C.R.R. 1854 of 2020

                       Saktipada Sannigrahi & Anr.
                                    -vs-
                      The State of West Bengal & Anr.


For the Petitioner                    : Ms. Debashee Adhikary



Heard on                             : 08.08.2022

Judgment on                          : 31.08.2022


Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred for quashing of the

proceeding being Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 under Section 12 of the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the

PWDV Act), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court,

Purulia.

2. The opposite party no.2 herein is the wife of one Kuntal Panda (who is

not the petitioner herein) and after marriage, said Kuntal Panda and the

opposite party no.2 started to reside as husband and wife at Flat No.104,

Block - KA, Siddha Town, Rajarhat, under P.S. Narayanpur.

3. Petitioner alleged that since the very inception of the marital life, the

opposite party no.2 never shown any inclination or enthusiasm to accept her

marriage nor she had any sympathy, trust, regard, respect, love or affection

towards adjustment of her matrimonial life. Subsequently, she was detected to

be a psychiatric patient and she was medically treated by a psychiatrist.

4. On 15th February, 2020 the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home

situated at Rajarhat, New Town, on the pretext of visiting her ailing

grandmother at Purulia. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge that on 17 th

February, 2020 the opposite party no.2 has filed an FIR being FIR No.59 of

2020 under Section 498A/325/34/506 of the IPC against her husband, her

parents in law and other family members and also against the present

petitioners. The petitioners have been wrongfully and mischievously implicated

in the said FIR by the opposite party no.2 with an ulterior motive.

5. The petitioner no.1 herein is a permanent resident of Bankura District

which is admitted by the opposite party no.2 in her written complaint dated

17th February, 2020. The petitioner no.1 is a businessman by profession and is

a family man. After the aforesaid marriage of respondent no.2, the petitioner

no.1 never visited in the marital home of the respondent no.2 at Rajarhat and

last time, the petitioner no.1 had seen the respondent no.2 at her marriage

ceremony and had never interfered in the family life of the respondent no.2.

6. The petitioner no.2 herein is 20 years old daughter of petitioner no.1

who is also a student and also permanent resident of Bankura District, which

is also admitted by the opposite party no.2 in her complaint. The opposite

party no.2 in conspiracy with her parents has criminally intimidated the

husband that until the ownership of the residential property at Rajarhat is

transferred in favour of opposite party no.2, her husband will continue to

suffer cruelty and other criminal proceedings.

7. Both the petitioner no.1 and 2 never had any far away dealing with the

family life of the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 with an atrocious

motive has implicated them to create wrongful oppression upon the husband

and parents of the husband in order to grab the aforesaid Rajarhat flat.

8. On 3rd July, 2020 the opposite party no.2 mischievously filed present

application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the petitioners herein

including her husband, her parents in law and also against the present

petitioners which has been registered as Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 and is

pending before the learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. The statements

and contents of the said application under Section 12 of the said Act is

altogether contradicting with the statements made in the written F.I.R dated

17th February, 2020, lodged by opposite party no.2 herein.

9. The petitioner no.1 and 2 both are permanent resident of Bankura

District and, as such, question of inflicting any kind of physical or mental

cruelty or domestic violence cannot and does not arise against the far distant

relatives, permanently settled in a separate district. In the Misc. Case No.68 of

2020 the opposite party no.2 had made no specific allegation against the

present petitioners nor there is any specific allegation as to how and when and

in what manner the petitioners caused the Act of domestic violence upon the

respondent no.2. The petitioners have been wrongfully and maliciously

victimized by the opposite party no.2 with mal-intent. Being aggrieved by the

aforesaid, facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners herein have

approached for quashing of the proceeding against them.

10. In spite of service of summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite

party. The affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

11. Ms. Debashee Adhikary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submits that the question of inflicting any physical or mental

cruelty cannot be attributed against the present petitioners. The statements

contained in the said application are omnibus in nature. Learned Magistrate is

wrongfully continuing the said proceeding against the present petitioners

under Section 12 of the said Act, because the petitioners are the distant

relatives of the opposite party no.2. There is no single allegation of any nature

of domestic violence against the petitioners and the respondent no.2 never

resided together in a shared household at any point of time.

12. On perusal of the written complaint dated 17 th February, 2020 it

appears that no specific allegation has been attributed against the present

petitioners. It also appears from the application filed under Section 12 of the

said Act that only in paragraph 15 of the said application, the opposite party

no.2 has implicated the present petitioners alleging "respondent no.2 to 5 on

their occasional visit to their household flat continued to in a consorted

manner subject to her mental and physical cruelty. Petitioner had to execute

household activities tirelessly and in case of tiny lapse continued to bear wrath

of the respondents". It also appears that in the said application under Section

12, the address of the present petitioners has been given by the opposite party

no.2, as village Bhutsahar, P.S. Simlapal, District Bankura, West Bengal. It

further appears that in the said application under Section 12 of the said Act,

the petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondent no.1 i.e. the

husband (who is not the petitioner herein) to secure alternative

accommodation of the petitioner as enjoyed by her in the shared household at

Flat No.104, Siddha Town, Rajarhat, preferably in Central Kolkata and to

arrange for monthly payment of rent of the same and also prayed for

restraining her husband and her father in law from alienating and or disposing

of the said shared household. She has also prayed for passing appropriate

order under Section 23 of the said Act for monthly maintenance Rs.15,000/-.

She has further prayed for compensation and damages for causing various

injuries including mental torture and emotional distress to the extent of Rs.1

crore. She has further prayed for restoring gold ornaments received by the

petitioner in her Boubhat ceremony from the respondent no.3 and her

streedhan articles which lies in her shared household in Rajarhat in the

custody of the respondent no.1.

13. Under section 12 of the PWDV Act, an aggrieved person may present an

application before Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. The

term "aggrieved person" is defined in section 2(a) of the said Act, which means

any woman, who is or has been, in a domestic relationship with the

respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic

violence by the respondent. So according to definition of aggrieved person, the

person aggrieved must have domestic relationship with the respondent. Again

section 2 (q) which defines the term "respondent" also speaks that respondent

means any person who is or has been, in a domestic relationship with the

aggrieved person and against whom, the aggrieved person has sought any

relief under this Act.

14. Again the term "domestic relationship" has been defined in 2(f) of the

Act, which means a relationship between two person, who live or have at any

point of time, lived together in a shared house hold. Now "shared house hold"

under section 2(s) means household where the person aggrieved lives or at

any stage lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the

respondent.

15. In view of the above, pleading it is clear that the respondent has not

prayed any relief against the present petitioners in the said application under

Section 12 of the said Act. Furthermore, it is not her case that the petitioners

are either owning shared household or they have any liability to pay monetary

relief under Section 20 of the PWDV Act to the respondent. It further appears

from the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate that he has restrained

the opposite party no.2 of that case i.e. father-in-law of the opposite party no.

2 from dispossessing, alienating and committing act i.e. caused injury to or

would cause any apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that her alleged

streedhan articles would be dispossessed without her knowledge till further

order.

16. From the four corners of the allegations leveled against the petitioner,

there is no averment that petitioners at any point of time was under domestic

relationship with the opposite party No. 2 in any shared household and

opposite party No. 2 has not prayed any relief against petitioners herein and as

such present petitioners does not come within the definition of "respondent" as

defined in section 2(q) of the said Act. Admittedly the present petitioners are

residing in a separate district in Bankura and as no relief has been sought for

against the present petitioners, I find that present petitioners are not

necessary party for adjudication of the said proceeding under the PWDV Act

and continuance of the present proceeding against the present petitioners is

mere abuse of the process of the Court and the proceeding also suffers from

mis-joinder of the present petitioners.

17. In view of the above, CRR 1854 of 2020 is accordingly allowed. Let the

proceeding being Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 under Section 12 of the said Act

pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Purulia, is

hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioners only as they are not

necessary party and their presence is not required for the purpose of

adjudication of the aforesaid Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 under Section 12 of the

said Act.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the

parties as expeditiously as possible.

(AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.)