Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
Liza Ghosh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
C.R.R. 2409 of 2021
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Criminal Revision Case - Challenge to Order under Sections 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C 1973 - Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 506, 34 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C 1973 and referred to judgments (2015) 6 SCC 287 and (2022) 5 SCC 639 to emphasize the duty of the Magistrate to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations before taking cognizance. The court highlighted the necessity of prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C and the requirement for the Magistrate to satisfy himself about due compliance of these provisions. The court also emphasized the need for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind and reflect the reasons for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) in the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Criminal Revision Case to challenge the order of the trial court allowing the initiation of criminal proceedings based on a complaint filed by the opposite party No.2, alleging physical and mental torture. The petitioners contended that the allegations were frivolous and malicious.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of ill-will and malice, lacking substantive grounds. It also held that the trial court erred in not observing the mandates of law while taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C 1973.
Issues: The issues involved the veracity of the allegations, the duty of the Magistrate to verify the allegations, and the procedural irregularity in the trial court's order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Magistrate to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations before taking cognizance, the necessity of prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C, and the requirement for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind and reflect the reasons for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) in the order.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the order of the trial court was set aside. The proceeding with respect to the case pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandannagar was quashed.
JUDGMENT
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. - Petitioners Liza Ghosh and Souvik Dutta have preferred to file the present Criminal Revision Case under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to challenge and with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2021 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore in C.R Case No.403 of 2021.
2. By dint of the impugned order dated 23.09.2021 the trial court has allowed prayer of the opposite party No.2 to take cognizance of his compliant dated 23.09.2021 and to pass directions invoking its power under Section 156 (3) of Cr.p.c 1973. The trial court has allowed such prayer and directions were issued by dint of the impugned order dated 23.09.2021, upon the concerned police station, to register the specific police case on the basis of the compliant dated September 23, 2021, by the present opposite party No.2.
3. In compliance with the said order, Chandannagore Police Station Case No.243 of 2021 dated 12.10.2021 was registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354, 506 and 34 of the Indian Panel Code against the present petitioners. Record reveals that the connected GR case number is G.R.No. 1513 of 2021.
4. The present opposite party No.2 made allegations in the trial court inter alia as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 is the elder daughter of the sister of the complainant/opposite party No.2 who has been allegedly of very obstinate and unruly nature from her childhood and both the petitioners together being husband and wife had allegedly committed physical and mental torture upon the mother of petitioner No.1 as well as her sister and the opposite party No.2 and his wife. Incidents of 22.08.2021 and 05.09.2021 have been narrated by the complainant in his said complaint that the petitioners have forcefully entered the house of her mother, i.e, the sister of opposite party No.2, hurled abusive languages and forcefully drove out the complainant and his wife from the house after causing physical assault. Allegations of outraging modesty of wife of the complainant by both the petitioners have also being narrated down in the complaint.
5. Upon the compliant, as above, of the opposite party No.2, being filed on 23.09.2021, the trial court has passed an order on the same day which is as follows:-
'Order dated 23.09.2021 Petitioner Goutam Neogi filed an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C against the accused Liza Ghosh & Anr. W*ith a prayer to send the same as F.I.R along with an affidavit stating that no case has been initiated upon the same allegations before any P.S. Perused the petition and photo copies of documents. It appears that a cognizable case is made out. Thus the petition u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C is allowed. The I.C Chandannagar P.S. is directed to investigate the case as per law treating the petition as F.I.R and to report compliance.
Let the complaint along with copy of order be sent to the I.C Chandannagar P.S. concerned'
6. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 23.09.2021 of the trial court as enumerated above and also of the initiation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the said compliant lodged by the opposite party No.2.
7. Learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the impugned order and impugned criminal proceedings on the ground, firstly, that the compliant is based only on frivolous and baseless allegations which are not substantiated by any cogent material on record. It is submitted that the entire proceeding is initiated on the basis of ill-will and malice and such malicious proceeding should not be allowed to continue.
8. Secondly, that the learned trial court, while taking cognizance of the compliant of the opposite party No.2 has erred in law by not observing the mandates of law while taking cognizance of a compliant like this under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C 1973. On this point on behalf of the petitioners, following two reported judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been relied on, i.e,
(I) (2015) 6 SCC 287 (Priyanka Srivastava & Anr.
The duty of the Magistrate to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations before taking cognizance and the necessity of reflecting reasons for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P....
The duty of the Magistrate to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations, the requirement for prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C 1973, and the need for the Magistrate....
The duty of the Magistrate to apply judicial mind while directing the registration of FIRs, and the consequences of filing frivolous and vexatious proceedings.
The magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and the registration of an FIR is mandatory only when a cognizable offence is disclosed; otherwise, the applica....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law in criminal proceedings and the failure to follow proper procedure before filing applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P....
The court affirmed that a Magistrate can issue an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. after a revision, even if a prior complaint was dismissed, emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for judicial reasoning and compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC before resorting to Section 156(3) of the CrPC, as ....
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
