Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1098

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Chhangoolal Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 591 of 2019 With CRAN 2 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 4588 of 2019)
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Swarnali Saha, Mr. Arindam Ganguly.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Sanjib Kr. Dan.

In cases where the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet do not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the accused, the proceedings should be quashed.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 498A IPC - FATHER-IN-LAW - NO PRIMAFACIE CASE - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED: In a revision petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who was the father-in-law of the complainant, under Section 498A/34 IPC, holding that the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet did not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the accused/petitioner.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who was the father-in-law of the complainant, filed a revision petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him under Section 498A/34 IPC. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner and other in-laws had subjected her to cruelty, including leaving insulin syringes around which was dangerous for the child.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet did not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner was the father-in-law of the complainant and that the allegations against him were general in nature. The Court also noted that the petitioner was diabetic and that the specific allegations against him were that he left his insulin syringes around which was dangerous for the child. The Court held that these acts were of being careless and negligent and that one cannot presume any bad intention of causing any harm on the part of a grandfather.
Issues: Whether the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet prima facie made out a case of cognizable offence against the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in 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., Umesh Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., State of Maharastra vs. Salman Salim Khan, to hold that in cases where the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet do not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the accused, the proceedings should be quashed.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 498A/34 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings being G.R. Case No. 4104 of 2016 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Howrah, arising out of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No. 142 of 2016 dated 27.06.2016 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the opposite party no.2.

3. The son of the petitioner namely Sailesh Gupta got married to the opposite party no.2. on 19.01.2012 following Hindu Rites and Customs and the said marriage was a negotiated one.

4. From the said wedlock, the son of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 had a male child born on 16.06.2013.

5. That despite being treated in the matrimonial home cordially and with warmth, the opposite party no. 2, for reasons best known to her could not adjust in her matrimonial home and behaved in an indifferent manner.

6. On 05.05.2015, the opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial home and despite several requests from the end of her husband as well as other in-laws including the present petitioner, she remained adamant and did not come back.

7. When despite fervent efforts of the son of the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 did not come back, the son of the petitioner namely Sailesh Gupta lodged separate written complaints before the Officer-in-Charge, Chatterjeehat Police Station, Howrah and Officer-in-Charge, Kasba Police Station, Kolkata, both dated 14.09.2015.

8. On 19.09.2015, the son of the petitioner, Sailesh Gupta, preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the opposite party no. 2 inter alia, praying for a decree for execution of conjugal rights (Matrimonial Suit No. 89 of 2015).

9. The opposite party no. 2 took out an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in connection with said Matrimonial Suit No. 89 of 2015, inter alia, praying for alumni pendente lite numbered as Misc. Case No. 2169 of 2016.

10. On 08.01.2016, the son of the petitioner, Sailesh Gupta filed an application under Sections 7/10/11/12 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, inter alia, praying for custody of his minor son, Master Pritesh Gupta and such suit was renumbered as Act VIII Case No. 2 of 2016.

11. The petitioner states that after such litigation instituted by and between the parties, suddenly the opposite party no. 2 lodged a purported written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Chatterjeehat Police Station as late as on 27.06.2016 and pursuant thereto, the instant case being Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No. 142 of 2016 dated 27.06.2016 was initially registered for investigation under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner and three others.

12. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was duly complied.

13. Upon conclusion of a purported investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet being no. 179 of 2016 dated 24.09.2016 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others.

14. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance.

15. Mr. Swarnali Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned proceedings is nothing but complete abuse of process of criminal law and the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

16. In spite of service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

17. It is submitted by the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner is the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The written complaint which has been treated as the First Information Report, would show that there is no material to make out even a prima facie case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code qua the present petition.

18. The written complaint which was treated as the First Information Report ranged into pages together, still the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under S