Lalan Ojha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 54 Cal

Form J(1)       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                            Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

                      C.R.R. 4330 of 2022
                       Lalan Ojha & Ors.
                              Vs.
                The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioner     : Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv.
                         Mr. Abhishek Dutt, Adv.
                         Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv.
                         Mr. Aishwarya Bazaz, Adv.
                         Ms. Rupa Singh, Adv.

Heard on               : 03.01.2023

Judgment On            : 03.01.2023.

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law

and married daughter-in-law of the opposite party No.2. On the basis

of a written complaint police registered Kolkata Leather Complex

Police Station Case No.39/22 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the

Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The petitioners have

approached this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet filed against

them on the ground of vagueness of allegation.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that

prior to marriage of the opposite party No.2 with one Jitendra Ojha,

since deceased, son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they were lived in

a live-in-relationship. Even they opened joint account in their names.

They used to reside in a separate place from the paternal house of

the deceased husband of the opposite party No.2. Subsequently

there was marriage between the opposite party No.2 and the said

Jitendra Ojha. After marriage the husband of the opposite party No.2

died of cirrhosis of liver. During his lifetime the petitioners made all

expenditure with regard to his medical treatment. Further, after six

months of his death, the opposite party filed a vague allegation,

stating, inter alia, that the accused persons/petitioners treated her

with mental cruelty during the lifetime of her husband. Subsequent

to his death, they did not allow her to stay at her matrimonial home.

They also did not accept her girl child as their grand-daughter.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners

relying on Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the decision by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of

Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 that when the written

complaint contained absolutely vague and uncalled for allegation

against the matrimonial relations of the de-facto complainant, the

complaint needs to be quashed. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the above

report is quoted below :-

"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.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the

contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general

allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant

alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of

terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct

allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein

i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in

furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This

simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role

played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations

are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have

been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is

concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High

Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against

him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations

made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant

prosecution."

Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on

careful perusal of the entire materials on record, at the outset I would

like to record that in Kahkashan Kausar (supra), the accused persons

approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court to quash an FIR. However, in

the instant case the veracity of the FIR was tested with the

touchstone of investigation by the police officer and finally charge-

sheet has been submitted against the petitioners.

It is not unheard that a lady who lost her husband is not

treated well in her matrimonial home if she is not allowed to stay at

her matrimonial home with her matrimonial relations after the death

of her husband, prima facie this amounts to cruelty.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the

instant revision and accordingly, the revisional application is summarily

dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Mithun De/ A.R. (Ct).

Sl No.30.

D/L.