CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Rekha Ghosh – Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Opp. Parties
CRR 912 of 2020 with CRAN 2 of 2022
Decided on 15.3.2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341/379/506 – Wrongful restraint, theft and criminal intimidation – There is no seizure list in the case – There is also no injury report or any other medical papers – There is no document filed by complainant to support his claim of payment due from petitioner/accused persons – Alleged sale has also not been prima facie shown – It is regarding payment of products sold which prima facie is a dispute, civil in nature – While considering discharge application, Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling evidence – Mere fact that allegation that accused had abused complainant does not satisfy ingredients of Section 506 – Complainant has clearly tried to give criminal colour to a civil dispute – There are no documents on record to prima facie substantiate allegations against accused persons – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 11, 13, 15, 19, 22, 23 and 24)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.—The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings in G.R. No. 113 of 2019, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Arambagh, Hooghly under Sections 341/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of Arambagh Police Station Case No. 39 of 2019, dated January 25, 2019 under Sections 341/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all subsequent orders passed therein.
2. The petitioner states that there are long-standing disputes by and between the parties regarding an illicit extramarital relationship between the sister-in-law (JAA) of the present Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 herein, as the husband of the said sister-in-law and the Opposite Party No.2 herein have been long time business partners. Thereafter, the present Petitioner’s said sister-in-law refused to continue the said extramarital relationship. A criminal proceeding, being Jamalpur Police Station Case No. 186 of 2011 dated 17.12.2011 under Sections 452/406/505/565/379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was instituted by the husband of the present Petitioner, which is still pending adjudication.
3. That in retaliation thereto, the Opposite Party No.2 herein, out of erstwhile grudge, had started threatening her and all her family members of dire consequences and had even consequently, instituted criminal proceedings, being Arambagh Police Station Case No. 618 of 2014 dated 28.06.2014 under Sections 448/323/325/307/354/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against not only the husband of the present Petitioner but also against the Petitioner.
4. That at the time of filing the Charge-Sheet in connection therewith, being Charge-Sheet No. 507 of 2014 dated 31.07.2014, the present Petitioner was not Charge-sheeted and hence, discharged.
5. That in furtherance of the aforesaid existing rivalries and disputes, on 09.07.2018, the Opposite Party No.2 herein filed a Complaint Case, being C.R. Case No. 151/18, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, Hooghly, against the present Petitioner and her sister-in-law with similar and/or identical allegations, which the Learned Court by an Order dated 30.08.2018 was pleased to dismiss under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the observation that the allegations made therein were utterly baseless.
6. That still unsatisfied with vengeance, the Opposite Party No.2 herein has instituted another frivolous criminal proceedings, (the present case) being Arambagh Police Station Case No. 39 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019 under Sections 341/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the present Petitioner and her sister-in-law.
7. The allegations and accusations, as leveled therein by the Opposite Party No.2 herein against the present Petitioner and others are as follows:—
“That the Opposite Party No.2 herein has a hardware business and he has given hardware materials on loan to the present Petitioner and her sister-in-law of a sum of around Rs. 60,000/-. But after completion of building of the present Petitioner, she regularly delayed repayment of the requisite charges and in the meantime, on 01 January, 2019 at about 4 p.m. when the Opposite Party No. 2 herein found the present Petitioner and her sister-in-law at the juncture of Arambagh Road and Tirol Road and the Opposite party No.2 herein asked for payment, the present Petitioner and her sister-in-law humiliated and abused him openly, tore his shirt and forcefully snatched away Rs. 1200/- from his pocket. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 herein came to the Arambagh Police Station and lodged the instant Complaint.”
8. The Petitioner states that the accusations, as leveled against her, are nothing but fabrication and have been contrived, concocted and made by the Opposite Party No.2 herein, in connivance with his family- members, only with a view to harass and torture the present Petitioner and her family members and to implicate them in non-ba
While considering discharge application, Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not – In such proceedings, Court is not to hold mini trial b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute and the requirement to consider whether a prima facie case is made out and whether the proceed....
The court held that allegations of defamation and criminal intimidation lacked substance and failed to meet the necessary legal criteria under IPC Sections 500 and 506.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations in a family property dispute lacked prima facie evidence of the accused committing the alleged offences, and the Magistrate's non-....
The court quashed criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation, highlighting that allegations lacked required intent and could be deemed malicious, thereby abusing the legal process.
The judgment establishes that mere abusive language does not suffice to constitute an intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and that the essential elements of criminal intimidation must be clearl....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes; a prima facie case must exist to avoid abuse of legal processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.