Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ASHA ARORA, J.
Sushmita Deosharan Roy @ Susmita Roy - Appellant
Vs.
State Of West Bengal and Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2017
Decided on : 15-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Ayan Bhattacharjee, Adv., Z. Elahi, Adv., Rana Mukherjee, Adv., Debjani Sahu, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of specific allegations and sufficient material in determining whether criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Headnote:
498A/406/323/307 - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code - Section 498A, Section 406, Section 323, Section 307
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sister-in-law, sought to quash criminal proceedings against her under Sections 498A/406/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the allegations against her were vague and unspecific.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of torture against the petitioner were general in nature and no specific role was attributed to her in the offenses alleged. In contrast, there was sufficient material against the husband, mother-in-law, and elder brother of the husband.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed due to the vague and unspecific allegations against her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceeding against the petitioner should be quashed as the allegations against her were general and unspecific, while there was sufficient material against the other accused.
Final Decision: The proceeding against the petitioner was quashed, while the proceeding against the other three co-accused was to proceed in accordance with the law.
ASHA ARORA, J.
1. The proceeding arising out of Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 9 of 2016 dated 24.01.2016 under Section 498A/406/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code being G.R. Case No. 423 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas has been assailed by the petitioner.
2. The facts in brief leading to the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are as follows :
3. On 24.01.2016 the opposite party no. 2 herein/defacto complainant lodged the FIR at Barrackpore P.S. against her husband Shyamal Ghosh, mother-in-law Namita Ghosh, sister-in-law Susmita Roy and husband’s elder brother Monoj Ghosh alleging offences under Sections 498A/406/323/307 I.P.C. In the FIR the defacto complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein stated that on 10.08.2009 she was married to Shyamal Ghosh according to Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage her mother gave gold ornaments, bed, almirah and other household articles. After marriage she went to her matrimonial home at 113, Central Road, Kolkata where she started leading marital life. Since after her marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and elder brother of husband. On 24.01.2016 at about 4 P.M. when the complainant was in her father’s house at Shibtala, her husband suddenly entered the room and tried to kill her by strangulating her with “orna” whereupon she cried for help and was rescued by some neighbours. She was medically treated at Barrackpore Cantonment Hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 09 of 2016 dated 24.01.2016 was registered. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under sections 498A/307/323/406 I.P.C. against the above named four accused persons namely, the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband’s elder brother. The petitioner herein is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2/defacto complainant who is residing at Mumbai in her matrimonial home and is in no way connected with the offences alleged. It is argued that there is no specific act attributed to this petitioner in the First Information Report and she has been roped in falsely on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations. The ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly wanting insofar as this petitioner is concerned. It is pointed out that according to the FIR the marriage of the opposite party no. 2/defacto complainant was solemnized on 10.08.2009 whereas the petitioner got married long before on 30.11.2006 and has been residing in her in-laws house at Mumbai. It is argued that the main allegation is against the husband, mother-in-law and elder brother of the husband who reside in the same household. Since the First Information Report does not disclose any specific overt act as regards this petitioner, continuation of the criminal proceeding against her is an abuse of the process of law. Hence the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding qua the petitioner. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case of Chandralekha and others - versus - State of Rajasthan and Another reported in, (2013) 14 SCC 374 paragraphs 3 and 9 and Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others - versus - State of Maharashtra and another reported in, (2015) 11 SCC 769 paragraphs 16, 17 and 18.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not seriously contest the submission on behalf of the petitioner on the point that the allegation against the petitioner is vague and unspecific. It is pointed out that though the charge-sheet has been filed against this petitioner along with three co-accused, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose general allegation of torture against this
