Santosh Poddar vs State of West Bengal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 582

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH JALPAIGURI
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sri Santosh Poddar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 5 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumdar, Mr. Soumik Sarkar, Mr. Subhadeep Sarkar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aditi Sankar Chakraborty, Mr. Ujjwal Luksom.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506, 509, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162(2) – Revision - Quashing of Criminal proceedings – Dowry demand – Harassment and cruelty by husband and his relatives – Distant relatives - Held, Courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths – Relatives of husband should not be roped in on basis of omnibus 10 allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in crime are made out – It is further manifest from said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of process of law – Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned courts from proceeding against relatives and in-laws of husband when no prima facie case is made out against them – In absence of any specific role attributed to accused appellants, it would be unjust if Appellants are forced to go through tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where relatives of complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial – A criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged – Applications disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No. 1518 of 2021 dated 28.11.2021 under Sections 48A/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri.

2. The petitioner’s case in short is that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a written complaint with Tala Police Station being Tala Police Station Case No.71 dated 24.4.2021 under Sections 498A/323/324/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the opposite party no.2 that she was married to the petitioner no.2, thirteen years back and was being harassed and threatened for last eight years. Subsequently on 28.11.2021, the opposite party no.2 filed another case against the petitioner being Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.1519 of 2021 under Sections 498A/506 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the accused are threatening to kidnap the children.

3. Mr. Sudipto Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that continuance of Bhaktinagar Police Station case on the same facts and circumstances will compel the petitioners to face trial at two different places which is an abuse of the process of the court and law and as such continuation of this proceeding is against the interest of justice.

4. It is further submitted that the complaint before the Bhaktinagar Police Station on 28.11.2021 is hit by the provision of Section 162(2) of the Cr.P.C and at best could be treated as a statement and not a new criminal case and this subsequent criminal case cannot be sustained as it is not in accordance with law.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed the case diary.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181, on July 12, 2001, the Supreme Court held that:-

“There can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Only information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in station house diary by officer in charge of the police station can be regarded as FIR under Section 154. All such subsequent informations will be covered by Section 162. Officer in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173. Even if after conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2), the officer in charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court and forward the further evidence, if any collected, with further report or reports under Section 173(8).”

7. From the case diary it is found that the FIR before the Tala Police Station is dated 24.4.2021 and the case filed with Bhaktinagar Police Station is dated 28.11.2021 (present case). The contents of the written complaint are similar and relate to the same facts and circumstances.

8. Considering all the material of record and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2022 LIveLaw (SC) 141, wherein the Court held as follows:-

“Issue Involved

11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed ?

12. Before we delve into greater deta