Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Jyoti Kumari Sharma @ Joti ... vs The State Of West Bengal And ... on 18 April, 2023
Form No.J(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
C.R.R.2641 of 2021
With
CRAN 1 of 2022
Smt. Jyoti Kumari Sharma @ Joti Sharma
versus
The State of West Bengal and another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anirban Mitra,
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey.
For the State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta,
Mr. Santanu Deb Roy,
Md. Kutubuddin.
Heard On : 18.04.2023
Judgement On : 18.04.2023
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :
The present revisional application has been preferred challenging
the proceedings arising out of Uttarpara Police Station Case No.475 of
2018 dated 29.06.2018 under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2
Record reflects that on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet
has been submitted before the jurisdictional court and the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Serampore was pleased to frame charges
on an appreciation of the materials presented/relied upon by the
prosecution.
It has been informed on behalf of the petitioner that the next date
has been fixed for evidence of P.W.1.
The case was initiated on the basis of an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by one Punam
Sharma against Jai Karan Sharma, father-in-law, Gyatri Sharma,
mother-in-law, Yogesh Sharma, brother-in-law and Jyoti Sharma, sister-
in-law. The allegations in the application under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure which has been treated to be the First
Information Report of the instant case are to the effect that the
complainant was married with Khakhan Sharma on 26.11.1996, it was
inter caste marriage out of an affair which developed between the
complainant and the said Khakhan Sharma. The accused persons are
the in-laws and they did not accept such relationship and immediately
after marriage inflicted physical and mental torture on the complainant.
After marriage, the four accused persons demanded a sum of
Rs.5,00,00/- from the complainant for accepting her as a wife for
3
belonging to a different caste, on being refused they became violent and
inflicted physical and mental torture upon her. The complainant alleges
that on 10.06.2018 the accused persons assaulted the complainant and
threatened her of dire consequences. Such incident was reported to
Uttarpara Police Station but no action was taken, she also sent a written
complaint on 11.06.2018 to Inspector-in-Charge, Uttarpara Police
Station and Commissioner of Police, Chandannagar through registered
post with acknowledgement due, but no action being taken she filed the
instant case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Learned ACJM, Serampore on receipt of such application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pleased to direct
the Inspector-in-Charge, Uttarpara Police Station to investigate the case
treating the petition of complaint as FIR and consequently Uttarpara
Police Station Case No.475 of 2018 dated 29.06.2018 was registered for
investigation.
The Investigating Agency on conclusion of investigation submitted
charge-sheet being Uttarpara Police Station Charge-sheet No.536 of
2018 dated 31.07.2018 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the four accused persons named above. The Investigating
Agency in order to substantiate their charge-sheet relied upon five
4
witnesses namely the complainant, Punam Sharma, her husband
Khakan Sharma, Bipin Sharma, Sandip Sharma and Upendra Pandey.
I have considered the statements and I find that in this case
which has been registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
the husband has been made a witness while the in-laws have been made
an accused. The consistent statement by all the witnesses relate to
demand of dowry at the instance of the in-laws. Surprisingly, the
husband Khakhan Sharma in his statement under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has also reiterated such contention which
was in the form of allegation in the FIR in the application under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the present case has been initiated out of private and personal
grudge only after the civil court passed a decree of eviction against the
husband of the complainant for vacating the portion occupied by them
in the property. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the judgment
passed by the Civil Judge as well as the appellate court. It has also been
emphasised that the marriage took place in the year 1996 and the
complaint was lodged in the month of June, 2018, almost after 22 years
of marriage. Learned advocate emphasises that the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code has been invoked with an evil design in close
5
proximity of time after the civil court passed the judgment for vacating
the property.
Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, learned advocate appearing for the
State produces the case diary and draws the attention of the Court to
the statement of the witnesses which are available and submits that so
far as the statement of the witnesses are concerned they do satisfy the
requirements of the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
as the statement of the complainant do reflect that there was a demand
of dowry and for the said purpose, there was physical and mental torture
being inflicted upon her. According to State, the requirements in
invoking the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was satisfied as the lady Punam Sharma did not get any
remedy after the complaint made with the Inspector-in-Charge,
Uttarpara Police Station as well as Commissioner of Police,
Chandannagar.
I have considered the submissions of the rival parties as also
accounted the series of events which are related to the present case.
The present case was initiated or registered with Uttarpara Police Station
on 29.06.2018 pursuant to the order passed by the learned ACJM,
Serampore. The allegations amongst others referred to incident of
10.06.2018
. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court,
Serampore, Hooghly in Title Suit No.218 of 2015 by its judgment on
March 18, 2017 was pleased to pass the following order:
"The defendant being a licensee in the suit scheduled
premises is hereby directed to quit and vacate the suit
scheduled premises within a period of 45 days from the date of
this judgment and decree and hand over peaceful and vacant
possession of the same to the plaintiff. In default, the plaintiff
will be at liberty to institute execution proceedings of this
judgment and decree."
The husband of the complainant preferred an appeal being Title
Appeal No.53 of 2017 and the learned Additional District Judge, Second
Court, Serampore, Hooghly by its judgment dated 21.06.2018 was
pleased to dismiss the appeal observing as follows:
"that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest
with costs. The Judgment dated 18.03.2017 and the decree dated
27.03.2017 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 1st Court,
Serampore, Hooghly are hereby affirmed. The
appellant/defendant is directed to quit and vacate the suit
property within two (2) months hereof i.d. the plaintiff/respondent
will be at liberty to put the decree into execution."
The application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure reflects that the same was affirmed on 27th June, 2018. Thus,
the provisions of the criminal court were invoked immediately after the
appeal court affirmed the order of the civil court with a direction to
vacate the suit scheduled premises.
In this case, the following circumstances emerge:
(a) The marriage was solemnised in the year 1996.
(b) An application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was filed before the jurisdictional court on or about
27th June, 2018. The contents of the application under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reflects that the
instant complaint regarding torture is of 10th June, 2018 and
the accused persons who have been inflicted are in-laws of the
matrimonial home.
(c) Surprisingly, in this case, the husband has not made an
accused but a witness to support the claim of the wife.
(d) The period of time after which such application under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for
invoking the alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code is of 22 years. The Civil Judge (Junior Division)
passed its judgment on March 18, 2017 and the same was
affirmed by the appellate court on 21st June, 2018.
Having considered the series of events which has taken place, I
am of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for
interference, as it is a settled proposition of law that where a criminal
case has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance
for private and personal grudge, such proceedings are liable to be
quashed as held in Clause VII paragraph 102 of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhjanlal reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
In view of the observations made above, all further proceedings of
Uttarpara Police Station Case No.475 of 2018 dated 29.06.2018
corresponding to G.R. No.1429 of 2018 pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Serampore, Hooghly including the
charge-sheet filed therein and all subsequent orders are hereby
quashed.
Thus, CRR 2641 of 2021 is allowed.
Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.
Case diary be returned to Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, learned
advocate appearing for the State.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
