Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 994

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL, J.
Riju Ray & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1339 of 2020
Decided on : 21-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Ms. Moumita Pandit, Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, Mr. Supreem Naskar, Ms. Jayashree Patra,
Ms. Ritushree Banerjee, Mr. Bhaskar Mondal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan, Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya, Mr. Arnab Roy.

General and omnibus allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, without specific instances or details, do not constitute offenses under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, and the court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings that amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 498A/34/406 IPC - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - CRUELTY - MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY - INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCES - GENERAL AND OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, respectively, of the opposite party, filed a revision petition seeking the quashing of the proceedings in a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 498A/34/406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party had lodged a complaint alleging torture and dowry demands, leading to her leaving her matrimonial home in 2019.
Finding of the Court:

1. The court found that the allegations in the FIR were general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details or instances of cruelty or misappropriation of property. 2. The court held that the ingredients of the offenses under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC were not satisfied based on the allegations made in the FIR. 3. The court relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without sufficient evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted offenses under Sections 498A/34/406 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Whether the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that general and omnibus allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, without specific instances or details, do not constitute offenses under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. 2. The court emphasized the need to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without sufficient evidence. 3. The court relied on its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice, as the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the FIR against all the petitioners, holding that the allegations were not sufficient to constitute offenses under Sections 498A/34/406 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt Paul, J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in First Information Report being Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No.464 of 2019 dated 22.12.2019 under Sections 498A/34/406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

2. The petitioner no.1 is the husband, the petitioner no.2 is the father-in- law, the petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law respectively of the opposite party no.2/defacto complainant.

3. The petitioner no.1 got married to the opposite party no.2 on 18.11.2013 as an outcome of negotiations between the parties and their family members. Then differences cropped up between the parties while leading their conjugal life.

4. The petitioners state that slowly and steadily the involvement and interference of the parents of the opposite party only increased and had an adverse impact on the marital life of the parties.

5. The opposite party no.2 would often leave for her father's place and stay there for days on end. The opposite party hardly cared much for the petitioners, not even when the petitioner no.2 suffered a cerebral stroke sometime in October, 2015.

6. In October 2016, the parties came to learn that the opposite party no.2 is pregnant. Although the petitioners were elated to learn of such news, the opposite party no.2 was not. In fact the behaviour of the opposite party no.2 underwent further changes. The mother of the opposite party no.2 did not mend her ways rather continued her interference in the lives of the parties.

7. On May 15, 2017, the son of the petitioner no.1 and the complainant was born. All expenses incurred during the pregnancy and also at the time of the delivery, were borne by the petitioner no.1 single handedly, even though the opposite party no.2 is a working lady.

8. On 15.02.2019 the opposite party no.2 left for her paternal home with her son for a short trip but never returned thereafter to her matrimonial home.

9. Till the date of lodging of the instant false criminal case there were regular messages being exchanged between the couple over SMS and Whatsapp platform where the opposite party no.2 even mentioned to make arrangements of mutual separation since she did not want to return. The opposite party no.2 in these Whatsapp and SMS communications never accused the petitioners of any dowry demand or any physical harassment.

10. The petitioners used to visit opposite party no. 2’s parents house with the intention to bring the opposite party no.2 and their son back to their home and to meet the child. However, for no reasons whatsoever on several occasions, the petitioners were denied entry and the petitioner no.1 was also denied meeting his son.

11. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner no.1 filed a writ petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus being W.P. No.22416 (W) of 2019 before this Hon'ble Court, on 02.12.2019. By an order dated 13.01.2020, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court disposed of the said writ petition, with a direction to approach the appropriate forum.

12. During this time the opposite party no.2 making false allegation filed an application under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act on 13.08.2019 against the petitioner no.1 praying for a decree of divorce before the learned District Judge at Alipore. The said application was registered as Matrimonial Suit 2191 of 2019 and is presently pending before the learned 6th Additional District Judge at Alipore for disposal.

13. Soon after, a written complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 leading to the instant case, being Netaji Nagar Police Station case No.464 of 2019 dated 22.12.2019 under Sections 498A/34/406 of the India Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an ulterior motive at Netaji Nagar Police Station alleging as follows:-

“The opposite party no.2 got married to the petitioner no.1 on 18th November, 2013. So