IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Before:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madhumati Mitra
C.R.R. 2255 of 2017
Priyabrata Mukhopadhyay & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Sabir Ahmed,
Mr. Hillol Saha Poddar,
Mr. Arpan Saha.
For the State : Mr. Saryati Datta.
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Sanat Chatterjee,
Mr. Sujan Chatterjee.
Judgement delivered on : 17.07.2019
Madhumati Mitra, J. :
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case
No. 261 of 2011 arising out of Chandannagore Police Station Case No.42 of
2011 dated 4th April, 2011 under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 325 of the
Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chandannagore.
The petitioners are the in-laws of the opposite party no.2.
2
The facts which are necessary to dispose of the present application for
quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are as
follows:-
The marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnised with one
Punyabrata Mukherjee in the year 2002 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and
Ceremonies. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- cash, golden
ornaments weighing of 25 to 30 bhoris and other valuable articles were given.
After marriage the opposite party no.2 and her husband started their conjugal life.
One daughter was born out of their wedlock.
On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the opposite party
no.2, Chandannagore Police Station Case No.42 of 2011 dated 4.4.2011 under
Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was started
against all the FIR named persons.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all
the FIR named persons except Jyotsna Mukherjee, wife of Atal Behari
Mukherjee.
Learned Advocate appearing for the State has produced a copy of the
case diary.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the
First Information Report there is no specific allegation against the present
petitioners. He has contended that the names of the petitioners have been
mentioned in the First Information Report out of personal grudge and malice.
There is nothing in the First Information Report, wherefrom, it can be presumed
that the petitioners treated the opposite party no.2 with cruelty. In the absence of
3
any specific allegation against the present petitioners in the First Information
Report, the continuance of the proceedings against them would be an abuse of
the process of Court.
The present petitioners are the in-laws of the opposite party no.2. From
the materials placed on record, it appears that the marriage of the opposite party
no.2 was solemnised with Punyabrata Mukherjee who is accused no.1 in the
First Information Report. After marriage, the opposite party no.2 and her husband
started their conjugal life. From the allegations contained in the First Information
Report, it appears that prior to lodging of the First Information Report, the
opposite party no.2 and her husband used to reside together with their daughter.
It has been alleged by the opposite party no.2 in the First Information Report that
she was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry since her marriage.
In matrimonial dispute the general tendency is to involve all the members
of the family of the matrimonial home and to make exaggerated allegation in the
First Information Report or complaint. As such it is the duty of the Court in
matrimonial dispute to scrutinize averments of the First Information Report with
great care and circumspection specially against the relative of the husband
otherwise innocents may be victimised. In the instant case, the names of the
present petitioners have been mentioned in the First Information Report in a very
cursory and casual manner. The First Information Report is completely silent
about the role played by the present petitioners individually at the time of
commission of the alleged offences. The allegations of facts as contained in the
First Information Report do not constitute prima facie case against the present
petitioners, In the instant case admittedly, charge sheet has been submitted for
4
commission of the alleged offences against all the FIR named accused persons
except one for commission of the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323
and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the First Information
Report, if taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian
Penal Code against the present petitioners. In this connection, it would not be
out of place to place reliance on the decision laid down in R.P. Kapur Vs. State
of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866. The principles as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court are as follows:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance of the
proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the First Information
Report or the complaint taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute offence, but
there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
charge".
I would like to cite the decision of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604.
In paragraph 108, the illustrations are as follows:-
5
1.
“Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police Officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out case against the accused;
4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplate under Section 155 (2) of the Code;
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuation of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress, for the grievances of the aggrieved party;
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly accompanied with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In the instant case, the First Information Report does not disclose any specific allegation in respect of the above-mentioned petitioners and the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation do not justify to proceed against the petitioners for commission of the alleged offences.
After considering all aspects, I am of the view that it is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners would be an abuse of the process of Court. Thus the proceedings being G.R. Case No. 261 of 2011 arising out of Chandannagore Police Station Case No.42 of 2011 dated 4th April, 2011 under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore in respect of the present petitioners namely Priyabrata Mukhopadhyay, Shibabrata Mukhopadhyay, Usha Mukhopadhyay, Amiyo Kumar Mukherjee, Ajanta Mukhopadhyay, Sujata Mukherjee, Atal Behari Mukhopadhyay and Arkabrata Mukherjee are hereby quashed.
The revisional application being C.R.R. 2255 of 2017 is allowed. The case diary be handed over to the learned Advocate appearing for the State immediately.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Madhumati Mitra, J.) NB
