2023 Supreme(Cal) 1097

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Hazari Ram Gond & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1006 of 2019 With CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 2473 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-07-2023

The power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. In the present case, the allegations were general and omnibus in nature and that no specific role was attributed to the accused petitioners. There was no substance in the allegations and no material existed to prima facie make out the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of a cognizable offence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 498A IPC - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - HARASSMENT OF WOMAN BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES - INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE - WILFUL CONDUCT LIKELY TO DRIVE WOMAN TO COMMIT SUICIDE OR CAUSE GRAVE INJURY - HARASSMENT WITH A VIEW TO COERCE HER TO MEET UNLAWFUL DEMAND - GENERAL AND OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS - NO SPECIFIC ROLE ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED - POWER OF COURT TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS - EXERCISE OF INHERENT POWERS - SUBSTANCE OF ALLEGATIONS - MALA FIDES OF COMPLAINANT - RELEVANCE - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, sought to quash proceedings under Sections 498A/406 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party no. 2, wife of the petitioners' son, alleged harassment for dowry and cruelty for 18 years since her marriage in 1997. The petitioners contended that the allegations were false, concocted, and made with ulterior motives. They argued that the case was a classic example of gross abuse of the process of the Court and that the investigating agency had not conducted a proper investigation.

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 offences as alleged. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments which held that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. The Court further noted that the allegations in the present case were general and omnibus in nature and that no specific role was attributed to the accused petitioners. The Court held that the proceedings in the case were liable to be quashed as there was no substance in the allegations and no material existed to prima facie make out the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of a cognizable offence.

Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 were sufficient to constitute the offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? 2. Whether the proceedings in the case should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent powers?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC are: (i) a woman was married; (ii) she was subjected to cruelty; (iii) such cruelty consisted in - (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet the lawful demand. 2. The power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 3. In the present case, the allegations were general and omnibus in nature and that no specific role was attributed to the accused petitioners. 4. There was no substance in the allegations and no material existed to prima facie make out the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of a cognizable offence.

Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the proceedings in 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 were quashed.