Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 378

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sri Swapan Bera – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1763 of 2020 With CRAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudipta Kumar Bose, Mr. Aniruddha Bandhyopadhyay.
For the Respondent: Mr. Krishna Das Poddar, Mr. Pradip Paul, Ms. Renesa Dey, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee.

The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the timing and nature of allegations in cases involving matrimonial disputes and the misuse of legal provisions.

Headnote:
498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code - Dowry Prohibition Act - 3/4 - 498A, 323, 3, 4 - The court quashed the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 1008 of 2020, corresponding to Patashpur Police Station Case No. 377 of 2020, under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Contai, Purba Medinipur.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a medical practitioner, faced false charges of torturing his ex-wife for dowry, despite their marriage being dissolved by a decree of divorce more than two years before the impugned proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations were an afterthought, filed almost two years after the divorce, and did not contain the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses.
Issues: Validity of the charges filed against the petitioner after divorce, and the timing and nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations were an afterthought, filed almost two years after the divorce, and did not contain the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings of G.R. Case No. 1008 of 2020, corresponding to Patashpur Police Station Case No. 377 of 2020, dated 09.10.2020, under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Contai, Purba Medinipur.

2. The petitioner states that he being the husband of the de facto complainant is now facing the false charges of committing torture upon the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 for demand of dowry under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in spite of the marriage tie between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 having been dissolved by a decree of divorce by the competent Court more than two years before the institution of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The parties were married on 30.06.2005.

4. The Petitioner states that he is a Medical Practitioner by profession and the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 was a housewife, and therefore the petitioner till date pays all expenses for maintenance of the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 even after the period the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 deserted the petitioner on 27.02.2016.

5. The petitioner submits that during the subsistence of their marriage, the de facto complainant/the opposite party no.2 herein inflicted mental and physical cruelty and also allegedly resorted to blackmail.

6. The petitioner then filed a matrimonial suit against the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2, being Mat Suit No. 149 of 2018 [Sri Swapan Bera – vs – Smt. Moumita Bera] seeking a decree of divorce under Section 27(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Notice of the said suit was served upon the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 but she did not appear in the said suit and the said matrimonial Suit was finally decreed ex parte against the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2 and a decree of divorce was passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas on 27.06.2018 thereby dissolving the marriage tie between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/opposite part No. 2.

7. In spite of obtaining a decree of divorce against the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2, and the marriage between the parties having dissolved, and the contract of marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2 having ceased after 27th June, 2018, the petitioner out of his good nature and own free will, without any direction of any Court of Law, continued paying monthly maintenance expenses at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] per month to the de facto complainant and transferred the said amount to the bank account of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2. The petitioner also invested in a Life Insurance Policy in favour of the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2 at the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India for a matured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Lakhs] whose yearly premium the petitioner is still paying even after obtaining the decree of divorce on 27th June, 2018.

8. The petitioner after a period of more than almost 17 months from the date of decree of divorce, with no appeal being filed by the opposite party No.2 within the statutory period of limitation having complete knowledge of the decree of divorce, the petitioner got married with one Swati Sarkar on 28.11.2019 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the said marriage is an arranged marriage through ‘ABP Weddings’, a matrimonial web portal, based in Kolkata, and the Social and Customary rituals were performed on 11th March, 2020, and the petitioner and his lawfully wedded present wife are residing together happily with one another and leading a perfect conjugal life since 28th November, 2019.

9. The petit