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

2023 Supreme(Cal) 6

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Sushil Kumar Mohanka & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 3659 of 2019
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Sandipan Ganguly, Advocate, Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Advocate, Avishek Guha, Advocate, Akansha Chopra, Advocate, Arijit Ganguly, Advocate, Debjani Sahu, Advocate

General and omnibus allegations, without any specific act of cruelty attributed, do not constitute a cognizable offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and proceedings based on such allegations are liable to be quashed.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - GENERAL AND OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS - NO SPECIFIC ACT OF CRUELTY ATTRIBUTED - PETITION ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and husband of the complainant, sought to quash proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the complaint was based on general and omnibus allegations without any specific act of cruelty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations in the complaint were general in nature and did not disclose any cognizable offense. The court also noted that the marriage had taken place in 2006 and the complaint had been lodged in 2016, after seven years of marriage. The court further observed that the allegations seemed baseless and intended to harass the petitioners.

Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to constitute a cognizable offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the delay in lodging the complaint, after seven years of marriage, affected the maintainability of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., and State of Maharastra vs. Salman Salim Khan, to hold that the allegations in the complaint were general and omnibus in nature and did not disclose any specific act of cruelty. The court also held that the delay in lodging the complaint, after seven years of marriage, raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the impugned proceeding being G.R. Case NO. 4312/2018 dated 11.10.2018 and Charge Sheet No. 10/2019 dated 15.01.2019 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, 24 Parganas North and all orders passed therein.

2. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, aged about 74 years and 69 years and the petitioner no. 3 is the husband of the complainant-wife.

3. The petitioner's case in short is that the marriage between the complaint/opposite party and the Petitioner No. 3 took place on 2nd July, 2006. From the very first day of her stay the defacto complainant used to keep all gifts received by the petitioners and other articles and ornaments of value belonging to the petitioner in an almirahs under lock and key. The Keys were always kept in her possession.

4. The petitioners allowed her to have unrestricted access to all their documents of Bank Accounts, ATM cards with pin number, Deed of house and ornaments kept in Almirahs allowing her free access.

5. The Complainant continually since her marriage treated the petitioners with utmost cruelty.

6. The petitioner no. 3 and the wife/complainant were blessed with a son who is now 11 years old and the wife later gave birth to another son, (out of wedlock), aged 6 years old now. Inspite of being blessed with a child, the complainant continued her misbehavior with the petitioners and raised petty issues on a daily basis causing mental strain and unrest within the family. However for the sake of their son's life, petitioners overlooked such acts and conduct and treated the complainant as their own daughter with utmost care and affection with a ray of hope that she shall understand their love and trust for her and start to respect them.

7. In the year 2016, she expressed her desire to open a Montessori School with an intention to achieve a successful professional career and the petitioners willingly encouraged and supported her mentally as well as financially whereby a substantial sum of money was invested in opening of such Montessori School by the petitioners for their daughter in law by obtaining a franchise of Kangaroo kids and also purchased a property at uniworld City Cascades, Tower 3, Flat No. 002, Kolkata - 700156, Rajarhat for running of such school by availing financial assistance from a Bank wherein she was inducted as one of the co-owner of such property.

8. The Petitioners stood by her at all time so as to support her zeal of opening of such school.

9. That due to the neglectful behavior of the complainant, the petitioners used to take care of the grandsons for their daily requirements such as to look after their studies, feeding them, nurturing them and fulfilled all requirements which children generally seek from their mother.

10. Though petitioners tried really hard to make her understand and made amiable efforts to reconcile any differences, all such efforts went in vain as on 29th September, 2018 at about 10.30 am, she left petitioner's house along with the children without intimating petitioners and went to her paternal house.

11. On October1, 2018 at around 6 pm, she accompanied by her elder brother Shri Manoj Saraf case to petitioner's house and started shouting at the top of their voices and threatened the petitioners that they have connection with some influential people and If they do not transfer all properties in her name, petitioners would have to face severe consequences.

12. The petitioners on the 13th day of October 2018 went to Newtown police station to lodge a written complaint against the complainant (Ishita Mohanka) and came to learn that already the said Ishita Mohanka had implicated the petitioners in the instant false and frivolous criminal case being Newtown Police Station Case no. 437/2018 dated 11.10.2018 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code presently pe

          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