Semanti Sahana & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 7204 Cal

           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
                          Appellate Side

Present:
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De


                        C.R.R. 1740 of 2018
                       Semanti Sahana & Anr.
                                 Vs.
                   The State of West Bengal & Anr.


For the Petitioners            :Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, Adv.
                                Ms. Subhanwita Ghosh, Adv.




For the State                 :Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, Ld. APP.
                               Mr. Md.Kutubuddin, Adv.
                               Mr. Santanu Deb Roy, Adv.


For the opposite              :Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv.
party nos. 2                  Mr. Biswajit Mal, Adv.
                              Mr. Abhishek Bagal, Adv.


Heard on                    : 21.09.2023, 04.10.2023,


Judgment on                :17th October, 2023
                                 2

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. This revision application has been filed with a prayer for

quashing of the proceeding in connection with the charge

sheet being no. 22/13 dated 28.09.2013 bearing G.R. Case

NO. 3496/13 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate

(2nd Court), Howrah arising out of Howrah Women Police

Station Case no. 18/13 dated 18.05.2013 under Section

498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. On 18.05.2013 at about 12:15 hours the opposite party no. 2

filed a written complaint to the officer in-charge of the Howrah

Women's Police Station alleging inter alia that she got married

with one Suman Bandopadhyay on 22.04.1996 as per Hindu

Rights and Customs. But, soon after her marriage petitioner

no. 1 & 2 and other in-law members subjected her to immense

physical and mental torture over demand of more dowry and

involving other family matters.

3. The situation escalated even further after death of father in-

law of the defacto complainant (opposite party no. 2 herein) on

01.01.2012. After the completion of rituals, the complainant

and her husband were not allowed inside her matrimonial

house and also all her stridhan articles including 94 grams of

ornaments were forcefully kept with the accused.

Subsequently, petitioner no. 1 & 2 along with other accused

used to harass the defacto complainant by hurling abuses and

by threatening to kill her.

4. On 14.05.2013 the defacto complainant's Orna was pulled

from behind on the road itself and her hand was rubbed hard

and she was pushed to the ground by the accused.

5. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, appearing on behalf of

the petitioners has strenuously contended that on self same

cause of action earlier FIR was lodged on 07.02.2012 before

Shibpur Police Station alleging offence under Section

498A/506/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After

investigation of that case charge sheet was submitted

accordingly.

6. Mr. Mitra has further contended that subsequently on

18.05.2013 again one complaint was lodged before Howrah

Women's Police Station which was registered under FIR No.

18/13 dated 18.05.2013 under Section 498A/406/323/34 of

the Indian Penal Code on the same allegation. In that case

charge sheet was also submitted under Section

498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly Mr.

Mitra has submitted that second FIR is liable to be quashed.

7. Mr. Mitra has further submitted that evidences collected

during investigation of this case are replica of allegations made

in the first complaint where charge has already been

submitted. In support of his contention following cases were

relied on:-

 Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Surendra Mohan Basu

Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar reported in 1962 Supp (2) SCR

 T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in

2001Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1084

 Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and another reported in (2013) 6 Supreme

Court Cases 348

 Tajmul Hossain Shah @ Taju Shah and Anr. Vs. The

State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2006) 1 C Cr LR

(Cal) 177

8. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Manjit Singh, appearing on behalf of the

opposite party no. 2 has submitted that second FIR was

lodged with allegation of assault and outrage of modesty on a

particular date that too after submission of charge sheet in the

first case.

9. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, appearing on behalf of

the State has submitted that two cases are not identical. There

is specific allegation in the FIR regarding an incident alleged to

have been committed by the petitioners on 14.05.2013.

10. Ratio of the decision of cases relied on behalf of the

petitioner is that there can be no second FIR and consequently

there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every

subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable

offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or

more cognizable offences.

11. Now the question that falls for the decision of the court is

whether second FIR was lodged for the same incident alleged

to have been committed by the petitioners who were already

booked by the charge sheet submitted following a complaint

lodged on 07.02.2012 at the instance of opposite party no. 2/

complainant or not.

12. Coming to the FIR's, it comes to my view that both the

FIR's lodged on 07.02.2012 & 18.05.2013 alleged the same

incident of torture and capturing of Stridhan articles. In the

second FIR, an incident of assault and outrage of modesty

were alleged. During investigation evidence were collected by

the investigating officer by recording statement under Section

161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC). The

complainant who lodged the FIR did not speak about any

offence of assault or outrage of modesty on 14.05.2013 in her

statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Only two

witnesses namely the husband of the complainant and sister

in-law of the complainant stated about abusive language only.

Therefore, allegation of the second complaint regarding

offences of assault and outrage of modesty have not been

substantiated by the statement of the complainant herself.

Even if I assume that petitioners hurled abusive language to

the complainant on 14.05.2013 that cannot be said to be a

cognizable offence which can be investigated only after

obtaining permission of jurisdictional court.

13. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the FIR in

connection with the case in hand is absolutely identical with

that of the previous First Information Report save and except

the offence of hurling abusive languages which is a non-

cognizable offence, though not corroborated by the

complainant herself at the time of giving statement under

Section 161 of CrPC.

14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am unable to allow

this proceeding to continue further as second FIR on the same

cause of action between the same parties is not permissible

under the settled principle of law.

15. As a result, the Proceeding in connection with the charge

sheet being no. 22/13 dated 28.09.2013 bearing G.R. Case

NO. 3496/13 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate

(2nd Court), Howrah arising out of Howrah Women Police

Station Case no. 18/13 dated 18.05.2013 under Section

498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands

quashed.

16. The revision application being no. 1740 of 2018 stands

allowed.

17. All parties to this revisional application shall act on the

server copy of this order downloaded from the official website

of this Court.

18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all

requisite formalities.

[BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.]