Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subodh Chandra Dey & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 22 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CRR 143 of 2022
Subodh Chandra Dey & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Debabrata Ray, Adv.,
Mr. Sudip Sarkar, Adv.,
Mr. K.P. Santra, Adv.
For the State: Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.,
Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.,
Mr. Anand Keshari, Adv.
Heard on: 08 September, 2022.
Judgment on: 22 September, 2022.
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1.
The petitioners are the parents-in-law, uncle-in-law, aunt-in-law
and the husband of the defacto complainant/opposite party No.2 has filed
the instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the criminal
proceedings instituted against him on the basis of a police report/charge-
sheet No.63/2021 dated 24th June, 2021 under Sections
498A/406/506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act arising out of a Coke Oven Police Station Case
No.107/2021 dated 12th June, 2021 corresponding to GR Case No.966 of
2021.
2. It is not in dispute that marriage of the opposite party No.2 was
solemnized with the petitioner No.5 on 28th February, 2021 according to
Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The opposite party No.2 has been residing
at her paternal home since 27th April, 2021. On 12th June, 2021 the
opposite party No.22 lodged a written complainant with the Officer-in-
Charge, Coke Oven Police Station, Durgapur stating, inter alia, that
immediately after her marriage, her husband and her parents-in-law held
a meeting with her on 3rd March, 2021 wherein she was informed that at
the time of marriage her husband did not take any dowry from her
paternal home. Therefore, she would have to bring a sum of Rs.5 lakhs
from her matrimonial home for setting up of a medicine shop. The defacto
complainant failed to bring such huge amount of money from her paternal
home. Thereafter her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband started to
treat her with cruelty both physically and mentally. The uncle-in-law and
his wife instigated other accused persons in perpetrating torture upon the
defacto complainant. On 27th April, 2021 she was compelled to leave her
matrimonial home to save her life. On 5th May, 2021 the father-in-law of
the defacto complainant sent a letter by e-mail to the defacto complainant
directing her to return her matrimonial home immediately failing which
he would circulate the said letter in public in the locality. The said letter
is an example of mental cruelty upon the complainant.
3. Investigation of the case was carried on by the police attached to
Coke Oven Police Station and on completion of investigation police
submitted charge-sheet under the penal provisions mentioned above
against the petitioners.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner within two
months of marriage the petitioner left her matrimonial home. On the basis
of some omnibus and bold allegation the parents, uncle and aunt of the
petitioner No.5 were implicated as accused persons in GR Case No.966 of
2021. The defacto complainant failed to state any incident of torture in
her written complaint. A false story dated 3rd March, 2021 was
manufactured to implicate the parents-in-law of the defacto complainant.
It is alleged by the defacto complainant that she was physically tortured
by her husband and parents-in-law at her matrimonial home. However,
the defacto complainant could not produce even a single piece of medical
paper to prove such allegation. The uncle and aunt of the husband of the
defacto complainant were falsely implicated on the basis of an omnibus
allegation that they aided and abated commission of offence of a cruelty
upon the defacto complainant within the meaning of Section 498A of the
IPC.
5. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand is that on 26th April,
2021 and 27th April, 2021 in the absence of any other family members in
the matrimonial home, the defacto complainant shifted all her belongings
including gold ornaments etc to her paternal home and left her
matrimonial home permanently without any reason. The truthfulness of
the said fact can be prima facie ascertained from the case diary when the
defacto complainant refused to render cooperation to the Investigation
Officer for recovery of her stridhan properties from her matrimonial home.
It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the
father-in-law of the defacto complainant wrote a letter by electronic mail
to the defacto complainant asking her to return her matrimonial home.
The said electronic mail cited as an evidence of mental torture allegedly
perpetrated by her father-in-law upon the defacto complainant.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed the case diary for
consideration.
7. I have duly considered the submission made by the learned
Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. It is needless to say that inherent jurisdiction of this Court can only
be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of the process of the
court but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. Secondly, FIR/complaint
may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent man can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
petitioner/accused. Thirdly, when the criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Fourthly, even
if FIR or its subsequent investigation purports to raise a suspicion of
commission of a cognizable offence, it can still be quashed if the High
Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised
mala fide. Fifthly, where FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value
and accepted in entirety, does not disclose the commission of an offence.
Bearing the above noted guideline with regard to the scope of Section 482
of the IPC let us now consider the instant case.
9. From the charge-sheet, it appears that except the defacto
complainant and her mother one Sujata De and Shyamal Saha were
examined by the Investigating Officer and their statement were recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The said Sujata De is the elder sister of
the defacto complainant. She resides at Mukundapur within Police
Station Jadavpur. Naturally she does not have any direct knowledge
about the incident as alleged by the defacto complainant. Shyamal Saha
is a neighbour of the paternal home of the defacto complainant. Thus, the
Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence from the vicinity of the
matrimonial home of the defacto complainant. Evidence of PW3 and PW4
is hearsay in nature. On careful perusal of the case diary I do not find any
evidence in support of the allegation under Section 498A/506 of the IPC
against the petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 4. The father-in-law of the defacto
complaint cannot be implicated in a criminal case only because he sent
one electronic mail to the defacto complainant asking him to return her
matrimonial home. Neither the hard and soft copy of the said electronic
mail was seized by the Investigating Officer.
10. Thus, on careful consideration of the materials on record as well as
the case diary, I do not find any prima facie case against the petitioners
No.1 to 4. Therefore, charge-sheet No.63/21 dated 24th June, 2021 under
Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners No. 1-4.
11. The instant revision is accordingly allowed in part.
12. GR Case No.966 of 2021 arising out of Coke Oven Police Station
Case No.107 of 2021 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed as against
petitioners No.1-4.
13. However, petitioner No.5 is liable to be prosecuted on the basis of
the charge-sheet under Section 498A/406/506/34 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act filed against him.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
