Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1096

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sangita Gond & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1213 of 2019 With CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 2472 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manjit Singh, Mr. Anjan Datta, Mr. P.C. Ghosh, Mr. Biswajit Mal, Mr. Abhishek Bagal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Avishek Sinha, Ms. Afreen Begum.

The court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings where the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offense, or where the proceedings are an abuse of process of court.

Headnote:
QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 498A IPC - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - CRUELTY - HARASSMENT - MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC - PETITION ALLOWED, PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 (wife), sought to quash the proceedings initiated against her and her brother-in-law (petitioner no. 2) under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint alleging cruelty and harassment for dowry for 18 years of marriage, which the petitioners contended was false and concocted.
Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the opposite party no. 2 had filed the case after 18 years of marriage and that there were no allegations or ingredients to constitute the offenses alleged. The court also noted that the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet did not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offense against the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 were sufficient to constitute the offenses alleged under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? 2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioners were an abuse of process of court?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., and Umesh Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., to hold that the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to quash the proceedings in cases where the allegations were frivolous or did not disclose any offense, or where the proceedings were an abuse of process of court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings of A.C.G.R. Case No. 4603 of 2015 arising out of Parnashree Police Station Case No. 238 dated 04.08.2015 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act now pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioner no. 1 aged about 44 years is the devrani (wife of Jay Prakash Gond and daughter-in-law of Hazari Ram Gond) and petitioner no. 2 aged about 37 years is the married sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner states that on or about 04.08.2015, the opposite party no. 2 filed a letter of complaint before the officer-in-charge of Parnashree Police Station which was registered as Parnashree Police Station Case No. 238 dated 04.08.2015 under Sections 498A/406/506(ii) IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. That on the day of filing the instant FIR, i.e. on 04.08.2015, the senior citizen father of petitioner no. 2 was already admitted in B.P. Poddar Hospital, New Alipore, Kolkata from prostrate operation from the period of 02.08.2015 to 09.08.2015.

4. The investigating agency on 12.05.2016 filed charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 134/16 dated 12.05.2016 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

5. The petitioners submit that the allegations leveled in the FIR are concocted and material facts have been concealed with ulterior motive. The allegations made in the FIR and thereafter filing of charge sheet on those allegations without any investigation are contrary to the facts and records and do not make out any offences far less the offences alleged herein.

6. The facts and circumstances in the present case are as follows:-

(i) The marriage between Om Prakash Gond and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 08.05.1997. That prior to their marriage, the husband was already employed in the Income Tax Department at Mumbai on and from 09.12.1996, as the Deputy Director (Systems) and is a responsible officer for the computerization of Income Tax in UP(E) basically offices/vendors situated in the district of Gorakhpur, Varanasi & Allahabad division.

(ii) The opposite party no. 2 has been staying with her husband in his service quarters at New Income Tax Colony, flat no. 401, Dindoshi, Goregoan (E), Mumbai- 400063, from May 1997 to June 2017 (for more than 20 years). She left her matrimonial home at Mumbai voluntarily for reasons best known to her. There is no explanation for the delayed lodging of the FIR which clearly shows mala fide intention. The case appears to be one of serious maladjustment in the marital life due to the behavioural issues including mood swings of the opposite party no. 2 herein.

(iii) The instant FIR is totally false, devoid of any merit as two days after marriage on 08.05.1997 at Bihar, the husband took the opposite party no. 2 to Kolkata. Thereafter to Mumbai in May 1997 from her parental home at New CPT Quarters no. F-17/18, Taratolla, Kolkata-700 088 and she has been staying with her husband at New Income Tax Colony, Flat no. A/401, Dindoshi, Goregoan (E), Mumbai for the last over 20 years. Prior to filing of this case, she was illegally over staying in the Mumbai Government quarters till June, 2017 although her husband had been transferred from Mumbai with effect from 20.11.2015.

(iv) On 29.06.2015 the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act being Case No. A.C. 3533 of 2015.

(v) Thinking about the welfare of the children, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 filed a reconciliation application with prayer for counseling before the Court of the Learned 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore pursuant to which the opposite party no. 2 again went with her husband to Mumbai on 18.09.2015 by Duronto Express PNR No. 6544864650.

(vi) The opposite party no. 2 was liv