Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Benumadhab Sahoo & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Present: - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.
C.R.R. No. - 2834 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Benumadhab Sahoo & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the petitioner : Mr. Anirudhho Bhattacharyya, Adv.,
Ms. Suchitra Chatterjee, Adv.,
For the opposite Party : Mr. Sanjib Bandyopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Ashok kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Biswajit Dutta, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Sreeparna Das, Adv.,
Judgment on : 15.11.2022
Subhendu Samanta, J.
This is an application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing a criminal proceeding of Belda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2017 dated
08.07.2017 U/s 498A/325/307/354/354B/406/34 of IPC read with
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 pending before the Learned
CJM Paschim Medinipur.
The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioners are the
husband and in- laws of the opposite party No. 2 of the instant case.
Marriage between the opposite party No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 was
solemnised in the year 2008. There are some matrimonial disputes and
parties started living separately. One application for mutual divorce was
filed before the Learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur U/s 13B of
Hindu Marriage Act. The Matrimonial Suit U/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act
was dismissed for default. This FIR was lodged by the de facto complainant
/O.P. 2 on 08.07.2017. Police conducted investigation and submit charge
sheet against all the petitioners.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that
marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 2008. Thereafter
due to some matrimonial dispute they started living separately and during
that time one matrimonial suit was filed before the Learned District Judge,
Paschim Medinipur, being MAT Suit 959 of 2012 U/s 13B of Hindu Marriage
Act for dissolution of the Marriage on mutual consent.
He also submitted that on the petition of mutual consent it would be
revealed that the parties were living separately since 25.07.2011.
After initiation of this case the petitioner appear before the Hon'ble
High Court for anticipatory bail wherein vide order dated 10.11.2017 in CRR
No. 1085 of 2017. This High Court allowed the anticipatory bail of the
petitioner No. 2 with the finding that the petitioner and the de facto
complainant are residing separately for a long period.
He further pointed out that the allegation in the FIR is concocted and
false. Alleged date of torture as mentioned in the FIR is on 30th November
2016 and the FIR was filed only on 08.07.2017. There are long delay and the
FIR having no explanation of such delay. Thus the fact of the FIR is not
believable. He again pointed out that during the course of investigation the
I.O. has collected the materials in connection with this case. MC collected by
the I.O. in connection with the alleged torture is dated 03.08.2012. Thus the
MC is not co-related with the alleged torture stated in the FIR. The fact in
the FIR as well as the alleged torture itself proves that the FIR is false one
and it can not be sustained. The FIR is harrassive and motivative only to
harass the present petitioner. Thus, the FIR need be quashed.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state submitted that
investigation of this case is ended in charge sheet. The C.D. reflected
sufficient materials to prove the prima facie commission of offence by the
each and every petitioner. The I.O. has submitted a charge sheet on the
basis of collected evidences. The matters raised by the Learned Advocate for
the petitioner is the factual matters which cannot be entertained at this
stage. She also argued that the petitioner may appear before the Learned
Court below with a prayer for discharge. The petition for quashing the
instant FIR cannot be entertained at the stage.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted
that the marriage between the parties solemnised in the year 2008. The de
facto complainant was driven out from her matrimonial home in 2011. The
proposal the mutual of divorce was not materialised. The fact of the FIR goes
to suggest that the de facto complainant was mercilessly tortured by the
petitioners at her matrimonial home on the alleged date of incident. The
police submitted charge sheet against all petitioners so at this juncture this
court can not entertain the application of the petitioner for quashing the
FIR.
Heard the Learned Advocates; perused the FIR as well as the charge
sheet. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioners inflicted torture upon the
opposite party No. 2 on the alleged date of incident. The police took up the
investigation and after conclusion of investigation the police submitted
charge sheet. The Charge sheet reflected, during the course of investigation
I.O. has collected sufficient materials including the statement of available
witnesses.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out some materials at the
stage that the parties were living separately since 2011 and alleged date of
incident is of 2016, the evidence collected by the I.O. that is the MC
collected by I.O. supporting the fact of torture is of year 2012. On the basis
of these grounds petitioners are before this court with a prayer of quashing
the FIR because the fact of the FIR is false and purposive.
This Criminal case was initiated on the basis of a petition of complaint
thereafter the investigation was conducted by the police. After completion of
investigation, police submitted a charge sheet. At this stage some
discrepancies in the evidences is pointed out before this court. Assessing the
valuability and acceptability of those evidences by this court would
tantamount the conduction of a mini trial; in doing so, this court has to
make up an opinion that some document is or is not correct in the
perspective of the particular case; but the such type of observation and mini
trial is not permissible. Any findings of this court regarding value of
evidences collected by the I.O. would no doubt affect the subsequent
procedure before the Ld. Magistrate.
This Court is now exercising inherent jurisdiction in the interest of
justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law. The finding of this
court at the time of passing order of anticipatory bail is of separate
perspective.
Considering the entire circumstances I am of a view that the petition
U/s 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the Criminal proceeding at this stage is
meritless.
In a result thereof the instant CRR is dismissed.
Connected CRAN application if any, is also disposed of.
Order of stay passed by this Court if any, in connection with this
Criminal case is also vacated.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
