Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SSHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Smt. Reba Das – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
CRA 165 of 2019
Decided on : 22-03-2024
498A - Acquittal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 498A
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the charges framed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and referred to relevant case laws to conclude that the allegations in the written complaint were general in nature and did not make out a prima facie case against the accused/respondents no. 2 to 5. The court affirmed the acquittal of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the charges framed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The foremost issue was whether the allegations made against the in-laws were in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to various judgments expressing concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. It emphasized the need for specific allegations and cautioned against false implications by way of general omnibus allegations.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the charges framed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
The Appeal :
1. The present appeal against acquittal is against the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in G.R. Case No. 2826/2008, arising out of Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 1124/2008 dated 27.06.2008, acquitting the respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the charges framed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner is the de facto complainant of the instant case and a victim within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the course of trial, she deposed as PW2.
3. The appeal was admitted on 15.07.2019.
4. On the basis of a written complaint lodged by the petitioner, Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 1124/2008 dated 27.06.2008 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was started against the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
5. On conclusion of investigation, the Investigation Agency submitted Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No. 681/2008 dated 23.08.2008 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and also exhibited formal documents.
7. The defence, however, chose not to adduce any witness of its own but through a process of cross-examination tried to probablize its own case and improbablize the prosecution case.
8. Upon conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in GR Case No. 2826/2008, arising out of Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 1124/2008 date 27.06.2008, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of the charges framed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Hence the Appeal.
Analysis of Evidence:-
10. The marriage between the parties took place in 1998. The FIR was lodged under Section 498A of IPC on 27.06.2008. Prosecution witness No. 1 (PW1) is the sister of the de facto complainant. She has made general allegation of torture upon the victim. She has stated that the de facto complainant was asked to bring money from her father to renovate the grocery shop of her husband.
11. It has been further stated by (PW 1) that the shop was to be given to the de facto complainant’s sister and her husband Keshav was asked to put up a new shop. This witness has also stated that her sister was driven out of her matrimonial home being unable to bring dowry.
12. Surprisingly this witness has stated that after being driven out, her sister and her husband Keshav resided in a rented house.
13. But now her sister/the complainant resides in her father’s house.
14. It appears a case was filed by the de facto complainant’s mother-in-law prior to filing of this case.
15. PW2, the de facto complainant has stated that problem started 7 (seven) days after the marriage.
16. PW 3 & 4 know about altercation between the parties but do not have any knowledge about their dispute.
17. PW 5 is the father of the de facto complainant, he has corroborated the complainant’s case. He has stated that he paid money to his son in law on several occasions. His source of income was by sale of land through registered deeds, but no such deed was produced.
18. PW 6 is the de facto complainant’s brother
19. From the Evidence on record it appears that there was a dispute in Reba’s matrimonial home and Reba and her husband used to reside separately from the other family members, being the mother-in-law, brother-in -law & his wife.
20. The dispute as seen from the evidence on record appears to be a family property dispute.
21. The only document exhibited in this case is the signature on the written complaint (Exhibit 1).
Conclusion:-
22. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which require
The judgment emphasizes the need for specific allegations in cases involving Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and cautions against false implications by way of general omnibus allegations.
The judgment established the importance of specific evidence and cautioned against general omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, emphasizing the potential misuse of Section 498A IPC and the ne....
The judgment established the importance of scrutinizing allegations in matrimonial cases and cautioned against implicating relatives of the husband without specific evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations in Section 498A IPC cases to prevent misuse and quashed proceedings lacking prima facie evidence.
The court established that specific allegations are necessary to sustain a charge under Section 498A IPC, preventing misuse of the provision in matrimonial disputes.
The court held that the ingredients required to constitute the offences under Sections 498A/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly absent in the present case and the allegations are general and....
The judgment established the importance of specific allegations and cautioned against implicating relatives of the husband without prima facie evidence in cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
