Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
F.a.m. Aminuzzaman Chowdhury @ Fama Chowdhury And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
C.R.R. 3221 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2022
Section 482 - Quashing of proceeding - Indian Penal Code - 498A - 292 - 373 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involves allegations of ill treatment, torture, and assault against the petitioner no. 1 by the complainant. The petitioner no. 1 is accused of demanding cash, assaulting the complainant, attempting to kill her, and other offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against petitioner no. 1 disclosed an offense, but the allegations against petitioner nos. 2 to 7 were evasive and lacked specific overt acts. The court invoked the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and other judgments to emphasize the need for specific allegations and held that implicating the relatives of the husband without specific involvement was an abuse of the process of court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of allegations against the petitioners, the involvement of petitioner nos. 2 to 7, and the potential abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that vague and general allegations without specific roles played by each accused do not warrant prosecution. It emphasized the need for particularizing the offense committed by each accused and their precise acts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the prayer for quashing the proceeding against petitioner no. 1 but allowed the prayer for quashing the proceeding against petitioner nos. 2 to 7, citing an abuse of the court process. The proceeding against petitioner no. 1 was not quashed, while the proceeding against petitioner nos. 2 to 7 was quashed.
JUDGMENT
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The present revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. case no. 4135 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore arising out of Jagaddal Police Station case no. 310 of 2018 dated 16.3.2018 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is alleged in the first information report that marriage between the opposite party no. 2 herein along with the petitioner no. 1 herein was solemnized according to the Muslim Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments and other articles were given. It is further alleged that few days after marriage, the petitioner demanded cash from the father of the complainant and since the father of the complainant could not arrange additional amount, the complainant was subjected to ill treatment and torture both mentally and physically. Father of the complainant requested the petitioner no. 1 not to inflict torture any further but the petitioner no. 1 did not pay any heed to such request. On 29.1.2016 the petitioners physically assaulted the complainant and had driven her from her matrimonial home. Subsequently on 24.01.2018 the petitioner no. 1 came to paternal house of the complainant and made an attempt to kill her.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Karmakar submits that in the year 2016, the husband of the complainant/petitioner no. 1 went to the house of the defacto complainant to bring her back in the matrimonial home but the defacto complainant and her family members misbehaved with petitioner no. 1 and tried to assault him. He further submits that on 18.7.2016, the opposite party No. 2 gave 'khula' (divorce) in presence of her parents and relatives and local people to the petitioner no. 1 and on the same day, the petitioner returned all her stridhan articles. In fact, the instant proceeding has been initiated by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 after dissolution of the marriage. He further submits that in the first information report, the complainant stated that beside husband her in-laws also demanded additional amount from the father of the complainant but the materials in the case diary does not support such allegation against in-laws of the complaint. In fact, the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2 had voluntarily left her matrimonial house but police without making proper investigation, has submitted charge- sheet under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 tried his level best to resume the conjugal life but the complainant gave 'khula' (divorce) to the petitioner and the lodgement of first information report is clearly an afterthought and has been filed with a motive to harass the petitioners.
4. Learned advocate for the opposite party no. 2 Mr. Dutta submits that materials collected during investigation and the contents of complain itself, clearly and specifically discloses offence against the petitioners. At the time of marriage, accused no. 1 expressed that he is a divorcee but ultimately, it appears that accused no. 1 has another wife and child prior to this marriage and a criminal case under Section 498A/292/373 of the Indian Penal Code is pending before the learned District Judge, Baharampur vide FIR no. 577 of 2011, (dated 11.11.2011) being G.R. no. 2365 of 2011. He also submits that petitioner no. 1 tried to kill the opposite party no. 2 by pouring kerosine oil but somehow the complainant managed to save herself. Petitioner no. 1 made attempt to murder the opposite party nos. 2 on five to seven times and also forcibly aborted her pregnancy on 3.8.2015 and 20.4.2017. Furthermore, the petitioner no. 1 taken naked photo and video of opposite party no. 2, taking advantage of her absence of mind and now threatening to share the same in social media. On 24.2.2018 the accused no. 1 brutally assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and threw acid towards the
Specific allegations and the precise role played by each accused are essential for prosecution. Implicating relatives without specific involvement constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution.
Vague and omnibus allegations should not lead to the conduct of a trial, and specific and substantiated facts are necessary to proceed with criminal proceedings.
The court emphasized the need for specific particulars of the offence committed by each accused and held that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific and distinct allegations in complaints, especially in matrimonial disputes, to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and the....
Vague, general allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient for a criminal trial under IPC Section 498A, necessitating specific roles and details for due process.
General and vague allegations do not support criminal charges under dowry laws; specific claims must merit trial while protecting against misuse of legal provisions.
The judgment established the importance of specific allegations and cautioned against implicating relatives of the husband without prima facie evidence in cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
