Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Nudrat Akhter and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR Nos. 372, 388 of 2016, IA No. CRAN 7 of 2017 (Old No. CRAN 2839 of 2017)
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Revision Applications - Quashing of Proceedings - IPC - Cr.P.C. - [Section 326/114, Section 406/114, Section 156(3)] - The court discussed the complaints filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the evidence collected during the investigation. It referred to the case of Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 946 and the parameters laid down in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 to conclude that the impugned proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, and therefore, quashed the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of physical and mental torture by the sister-in-laws and their respective husbands against the opposite party, leading to multiple complaints and counter-complaints under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaints did not disclose specific allegations or roles of the accused to constitute any offense. It also noted that the complaints were filed as a counter blast of a case filed by the mother-in-law of the opposite party, and the impugned proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaints filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. disclosed specific allegations or roles of the accused to constitute any offense, and whether the impugned proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the parameters laid down in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 to determine whether the impugned proceedings were manifestly attended with malice and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned proceedings and allowed the revision applications.
JUDGMENT :
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
1. Both the revision applications are taken up together for disposal via this common judgment on account of identical issue involved in both the cases initially put into motion by Aneesha Asfer who is the common opposite party (O.P. No. 2) in both the revision applications.
Brief facts:
CRR No. 372 of 2016
2. Petitioners no. 1, 2 & 6 are the sister-in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 herein. Petitioner no. 3 is the husband of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 5 is the husband of petitioner no. 6. Petitioner no. 4 is the son of the uncle-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The full blood brother of the petitioners no. 1, 2 & 6 namely Afser Shamim married the opposite party no. 2 herein and started residing along with his mother Ishrat Akhter (petitioner no. 1 of CRR 388 of 2016). It has been alleged that since after marriage the opposite party no. 2 in collusion with her husband started torturing the said Ishrat Akhter (petitioner no. 1 of CRR 388 of 2016) in every possible manner both physically and mentally in order to acquire the ancestral property. Such torture reached its saturation point on 20.01.2013 when she was viciously assaulted by the opposite party no. 2 herein along with her husband which resulted in severe injuries to the mother (petitioner no. 1 of CRR 388 of 2016) of the petitioner 1, 2 & 6 herein.
3. On receipt of such information by the local people, petitioner no. 2 herein reached there and took her mother to the hospital. After recovery the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 made a complaint to the Beniapukur Police Station which resulted in initiation of Beniapukur Police Station case no. 28 of 2013 dated 24.01.2013 under Section 326/114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). After initiation of such case a mass petition was made by majority of the local people with a prayer for prolonged custody of the opposite party no. 2 and her husband as they were arrested by that time. After completion of investigation in connection with the aforementioned case charge sheet was submitted against the opposite party no. 2 and her husband.
4. Afterwards, the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short A.C.J.M.) Sealdah, South 24 Parganas against the petitioners with a prayer for issuance of direction for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) with the allegation that her ornaments and other valuable articles have remained inside the almirah of her matrimonial residence from where she has been evicted on the pretext of some false allegations. After considering the complaint petition the Ld. Magistrate took cognizance which resulted in registration of the complaint case no. 893 of 2013 under Section 406/114 of the IPC. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate (for short J.M.) 5th Court, Sealdah, for disposal
5. CRR No. 388 of 2016
6. The opposite party no. 2 herein filed another complaint on 21.02.2015 before the Ld. A.C.J.M., Sealdah on the similar set of allegations mentioned hereinabove. But, this time the name of husband, mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 herein was also included along with the other petitioners. Ld. Magistrate after perusal, forwarded the same to Beniapukur Police Station for investigation and accordingly Beniapukur Police Station case no. 246 of 2015 dated 23.05.2015 was started.
Argument Advanced:
7. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Kallol Mondal, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the revision applications has submitted that the petitioners in connection with 372 of 2016 reside elsewhere as it appears from the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Mr. Mondal has contended that opposite party no. 2 has filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in connection with both the revision applications with some bald allegations and to wreak vengeance as admittedly mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 filed a c
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, particu....
The court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations and applied the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.
Vague, general allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient for a criminal trial under IPC Section 498A, necessitating specific roles and details for due process.
The court established that applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be supported by affidavits and prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) to prevent abuse of the legal proce....
Vague allegations without specific roles attributed to accused do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings, necessitating quashing to prevent abuse of process of law.
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
