Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Apurba Sinha Ray, J.
Shantanu Moitra and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Opp. Parties
CRR No.2236 of 2023
Decided on 5.5.2026
For the Petitioners:Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, Ms. Munmun Tewary, Mrs. Sohini Adhikary, Mr. Supreem Naskar, Ms. Jayashree Paria, Ms. Pritha Sinha, Mr. Gourav Sarkar and Ms. Arpita Biswas, Advocates
For the Opp. Party No.2:Mr. Smrajit Basu and Mr. Tirtharaj Ghosal, Advocates
For the State of West Bengal:Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur and Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and hurt – Common intention – Normal wear and tear in matrimonial disputes should not be given much weightage.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A/323 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 and 401 – Cruelty and hurt – Common intention – Refusal to discharge – Normal wear and tear in matrimonial disputes should not be given much weightage – Allegation of torture against revisionists appear to be general and omnibus – No specific averment was made by de-facto complainant as to specific role played by each of revisionists – As neighbours were not eye-witnesses to alleged incident of physical torture it would be very difficult for prosecution to prove such alleged physical torture upon de-facto complainant, particularly when FIR and statement of de facto complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C shows that she herself did not make any allegation of physical torture – If content of FIR does not disclose prima facie case FIR can be quashed – FIR and connected charge-sheet quashed. (Paras 12, 17, 27 and 30)
Result: Criminal Revision Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
Apurba Sinha Ray, J.—The backdrop of the present revisional application is encapsulated in the following paras.
2. The private respondent no.2 Smt. Ankana Moitra has lodged a written complaint to the Inspector-in-charge, Bidhannagar South Police Station on 14.12.2021 around 14.25 hrs. alleging, inter alia, that a Hindu Marriage between herself and Shantanu Moitra took place on 21.04.2005 and after her marriage she went to her matrimonial home at FD Block, Sector -3, Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas and out of the said wedlock one male child namely master Sannibh Moitra was born on 26.01.2012 and after his birth her husband and in-laws started different types of torture upon her which was increasing day by day. The FIR has also contained the following averments.
“That suddenly on 26.11.2021, when 1 came back from my work, 1 saw that nobody of my family members is in the aforesaid address and except my room all other rooms of the said flats were locked. Thereafter I searched here and there and asked every one of the aforesaid complex. But no result. Thereafter I called my husband and mother-in-law in their mobile phones. But they did not pick up my phone calls. My husband with the help of my in-laws specifically my mother-in-law, they took away my son in my absence to create mental trauma upon me and after carefully searching I saw that some cash worth approximately Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety-One Thousand only and my daily wear jewellery is missing from my almirah.
That after this incident and finding no other alternatives I went to your Police Station on 26.11.2021 but your police personnel did not help me and refused to take any action. Thereafter finding no other alternatives I compelled to write my grievances to you for taking appropriate necessary steps towards my grievances.”
3. After receipt of the said complaint Bidhannagar Police Station Case no.320 of 2021 dated 14.12.2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of the IPC, 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was initiated and after completion of the investigation the present revisionists being the husband and mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant were chargesheeted under Section 498 A/323/ 34 of the IPC.
4. After submission of charge sheet, and also after obtaining bail order from the learned Court, the revisionists had filed a discharge prayer before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Judge by his order dated 08.06.2023 refused to allow the prayer for discharge of the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved with such order, the revisionists preferred this application under Section 482 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in GR Case no.1522 of 2021 in connection with Bidhannagar South Police Station Case no.320 dated 14.12.2021 under Section 498-A/323 read with section 34 of IPC and the chargesheet being no.3 of 2022 dated 28.01.2022 be set aside. It is also prayed that the relevant case and its chargesheet be quashed since no material evidence is collected by the concerned IO against the present revisionists.
5. Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned Senior counsel has submitted that since the year 2014 the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 started residing separately under the same roof. Although there was no dispute till birth of the child, which took place on 26.01.2012, the petitioner no.1 was compelled to lodge a complaint on 25.11.2021 with the Inspector-in-charge of Bidhannagar South Police Station against the opposite party no.2 thereby narrating the incidents of constant torture inflicted upon him, his aged mother and his child including the incidents of physical assault and repeated threats at the instance of the opposite party no.2. Unable to bear such torture, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 alongwith child left their ancestral house on 26.11.2021 and started residing separately. Although, the opposite party no.2 filed a written complaint on 14.12.2021 against the petitioners, the ingredients of of
