Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pankaj Kumar Mandal vs Unknown on 10 November, 2022
10.11.2022
Court No.652
Sl. No.11
SD
CRR 1813 of 2022
With
CRAN 1 of 2022
In the matter of: Pankaj Kumar Mandal
....Petitioner.
Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar
Mr. Avik Ghatak
Mr. Aditya Tiwary
Mr. T. Saha
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Datta
Mr. Santanu Deb Roy
... for the State.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking quashing of proceeding being G.R. Case No.4184 of
2021 arising out of Eco Park Police Station FIR Case No.263 of 2021
dated 05.10.2021 under Sections 498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the FIR, it is alleged that the defacto complainant had
married the son of the petitioner, namely, Somnath Mandal on April
20, 2006 which was the second marriage for both the defacto
complainant as well as Somnath Mandal and they both had children
from their respective earlier marriages.
It is alleged that after few years of her marriage, the petitioner's
son i.e. her husband and her in laws became very aggressive towards
the defacto complainant and used to treat her daughter like a guest
and in absence of her husband, the mother-in-law of the defacto
complainant repeatedly threatened defacto complainant to take care of
her step son. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law of the defacto
complainant wrote a letter that the defacto complainant should not be
planning for having another child and if the defacto complainant said
anything to her husband Somnath Mandal, he would always take the
side of her mother stating that her mother is correct.
2
Further allegation of petitioner in FIR is whenever her husband
came to home, he used to torture her mentally with abusive language
and her mother-in-law forced her to divorce her son otherwise
threatened to ruin her daughter's life. Finally she alleged in FIR that
her in laws have intentionally tortured complainant and her daughter
mentally by never calling, caring or paying heed to her.
Mr. Avik Ghatak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submits that upon completion of investigation, the
investigating authority has filed charge sheet under Section 498A/506
against the present petitioner and five others.
The petitioner further submits that the petitioner is absolutely
innocent and in no way connected with the alleged offence and no
allegation whatsoever has been leveled against him in the FIR.
Moreover, there is no mention anywhere in the materials collected by
the investigating agency, in the course of purported investigation,
about any physical assault or mental torture having been perpetrated
upon the defacto complainant by the petitioner herein which required
medical intervention. In fact, no medical professional has been named
as prosecution witness in the charge sheet, which shows that she was
never subjected to any physical assault.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further
submits that except casual references about the petitioner and other
family members, there is absolutely no allegation of petitioner's active
involvement in inflicting alleged torture upon the defacto complainant
justifying therein, taking cognizance of the offences against the
petitioner and by completely overlooking the fact that there is always a
tendency on the part of the complainant/ wife to involve all the family
members of the household in the offence over a domestic quarrel taken
3
place between the husband and the wife, for the mere reason that
such family members are related to the husband of the complaint.
Mr. Ghatak further submitted learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance in respect of the offence against the present petitioner. The
letter of complaint that led to the initiation of the instant case i.e. the
FIR is sadly vague with regard to the role apparently played by the
petitioner in the commission of the offence. There is no mention
anywhere as to what specific offence has been committed by the
petitioner or when it was committed or what is the exact role that was
played by the petitioner in respect of the commission of alleged offence.
Mr. Ghatak further submits in order to lodge a proper
complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those
sections are not all. What is required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of offence committed by each and every
accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing
of that offence.
Accordingly, he submits that even if the allegation leveled by the
defacto complainant/opposite party is taken to be gospel truth, it does
not attract either under Section 498A or 506 of the Indian Penal Code
in respect of the present petitioner. Practically charge sheet submitted
against the petitioner is a stereotype in nature and submitted in a
casual manner without any reason and as such, continuation of the
impugned proceeding against the petitioner herein would be gross
abuse of the process of court. Accordingly, prayed for quashing of the
aforesaid proceeding against the present petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State,
has produced the case diary and leave the matter to the discretion of
the court, stating that statement of only two witnesses were recorded
4
during investigation under section 161 of the Code as appearing from
case diary.
On perusal of the case diary, it appears that during investigation
police has recorded the statement of two witnesses under Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and said two statements does not
disclose any offence against the present petitioner. Neither in the FIR
nor in the statements recorded under Section 161, any specific
allegation has been attributed against the present petitioner. I do not
find any other incriminating material in the case diary in respect of the
petitioner. The object veiled behind implicating present petitioner with
the alleged offence apparently to harass petitioner. In Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported
in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 162 Apex Court observed in paragraph no.
17:-
"17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and
the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made
in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court
by way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband
when no prima facie case is made out against them."
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I
find that continuation of the present proceeding against the present
petitioner will be an abuse of process court as materials available
before me does not disclose any offence against present petitioner of
and as such, I find that this is a fit case where the inherent power
under Section 482 is required to be exercised.
In view of the above, the revisional application being CRR
1813/2022 is accordingly allowed.
5
Let all further proceedings in G.R. Case No.4184 of 2021 arising
out of Eco Park Police Station FIR Case No.263 of 2021 dated
05.10.2021
under Sections 498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code against
the present petitioner is hereby quashed.
In view of the same, CRAN 1 of 2022 is accordingly disposed of.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
