Sk. Tanveer Ahmed & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 234 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 220 of 2022

Sk. Tanveer Ahmed & Ors.

-vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner            : Ms. Devipriya Mitra




Heard on                       : 31.01.2022


Judgment on                    : 31.01.2022



Jay Sengupta, J.:

      This   is    an   application   challenging   an   investigational

proceeding under Sections 406, 498A, 326 read with Section 114 of

the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as follows. The

petitioners are the husband and the in-laws of the de facto

complainant/opposite party. Over the self-same allegations in 2010,

the de facto complainant had filed an FIR over the same. A charge

sheet has submitted and the proceeding is going on. The de facto

complainant/husband and the in-laws stayed at the same house.

Yet, in 2020, another FIR was lodged by the lady making similar

allegations. As such, the second proceeding should be quashed for

having proceeded on a second FIR.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have

perused the revision and the copies of the FIRs lodged in the two

cases.

A vital distinction between the first and the second

proceedings is that the de facto complainant clearly alleged in the

FIR of 2020 that the accused caused a grievous hurt to her. The

husband allegedly sat on her chest and hit her resulting in fracture

of her 2nd and 3rd ribs. The de facto complainant categorically stated

that she had to undergo medical treatment at C.N & M.C Hospital.

Therefore, it cannot be argued here that a second FIR was

lodged on the self-same cause of action. On the contrary, the

allegations made in the two FIRs are quite distinct and different,

especially, vis-à-vis' the allegation under Section 326 of the Penal

Code. In fact, this seems to be the prime issue in the case of 2020.

I find that a prima facie case as alleged is made out against the

accused in the present proceeding, as would be evident from a plain

reading of the instant FIR.

Moreover, the case is purportedly pending at the stage of

investigation. At this stage one has to be scrupulously circumspect

in interfering with a criminal proceeding.

Taking the above aspects into consideration, I do not find any

merit in this application.

Therefore, the application for quashing of the proceeding is

dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied

to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

tbsr