SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Tanusree Das alias Tanushree Das – Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Respondents
CRR No.2092 of 2023 with CRAN 2 of 2024
Decided on 24.12.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indranuj Dutta, Ms. Benazir Sk, Advocates
For the Respondent-State:Mr. Imran Ali, Ms. Debjani Sahu, Advocates
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Avijit Addya, Mr. Bidyut Baran Biswas, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and hurt – Allegations of complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A/323/325/34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85/115/117/3(5)] – Cruelty and hurt – Common intention – In written complaint by opposite party there is no specific allegation against petitioner who is married sister-in-law (Nanad) of de facto complainant – Allegations are general in nature and petitioner has been named only in cause title of the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. – There does not appear to be any specific allegations against her in contents of application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. – Materials in case diary also show that allegations are general in nature and written complaint has been filed after almost 18 years of marriage and permitting the case to proved against petitioner, will clearly be abuse of process of law – Criminal proceedings quashed in respect of petitioner. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)

Result: Criminal Revision Application allowed.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.—The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.729 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.630 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022 under Sections 498A/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein in connection with the instant case.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a Government School at Chakdaha, District-Nadia. The de facto complaint is married to the petitioner’s brother since 2006.

3. The de facto complainant is a permanent resident of Krishnanagar, Nadia and the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chakdaha, Nadia being married at Chakdaha. The distance between the two places is about 50 kms.

4. The allegation in this case is for offences punishable under Sections 498A/323/325/34 of IPC.

5. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs State of Telangana & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. ………… of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024, decided on December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court held:-

“15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top