Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 813

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Anupam Sardar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1737 of 2020
Decided On : 19-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashis Kr. Chowdhury, Mr. Rajib Ghosh, Mr. B.B. Bera.
For the State : Mr. Binay Panda, Ms. Puspita Saha.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can quash criminal proceedings if they are manifestly attended with mala fides and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Family Property Dispute - IPC 1860, Sections 341/323/506/34 - The court discussed the allegations of continuous torture and harassment by the in-laws, the family property dispute, and the misuse of power by the practicing advocate. The court referred to various precedents and legal principles to conclude that no prima facie materials existed to constitute the alleged offences, and therefore, quashed the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are the in-laws of the Opposite Party No.2, sought the quashing of the FIR and Charge Sheet filed against them under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the IPC. They alleged continuous torture and harassment by the Opposite Party No.2 and her husband, as well as a family property dispute.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations of criminal acts or intent against the petitioners were not prima facie made out, and the dispute primarily pertained to a civil family property dispute.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR and Charge Sheet constituted prima facie criminal offences against the petitioners or were primarily related to a civil family property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various legal principles and precedents to conclude that no prima facie materials existed to constitute the alleged offences, and therefore, the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the FIR being no. 14/18 dated 03.01.2018 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Charge Sheet No. 387/18 dated 31.03.2018 corresponding to GR Case No. 93/18 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, 24 Parganas (South).

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

3. The petitioners are the in laws of the Opposite Party No.2.

4. It is alleged by the petitioners that the Opposite Party no. 2 along with her husband has been torturing the petitioners and their mother and also other family members continuously and several complaints have been filed.

5. The petitioners’ states that the Opposite Party no. 2 is a practicing advocate and she along with her husband has been continuously torturing and harassing the father (now deceased) and mother of the petitioners and for that reason petitioner’s father had been compelled to transfer the family business in the name of the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2. After the demise of the father of the petitioners, the said Opposite Party No. 2 and her husband did not contribute to the day to day expenses and also for the expenses of the treatment of their ailing mother nor did they allow the other family members to live peacefully or to enter their ancestral property. They also filed several false cases against petitioners with an intention to capture the entire property of the petitioners. The husband of the Opposite Party no. 2 has also filed a title suit being no. T.S. 191 of 2017 in respect of their father’s property which is pending for adjudication.

6. The petitioners states that the Opposite Party No. 2 is a practicing advocate by profession and by misusing her power has filed a complaint against the in-laws before the Sonarpur Police Station and the same was registered as G.R. Case No. 5525/17. But the case ended in FRT as the allegations were false. The petitioner also states that in the month of May 2018 when the family of the petitioner no.1 and his other family members had organized the last rites and rituals for their father-in-law at the ancestral property, the opposite party called the police from Sonarpur Police Station and disturbed the said ceremony without reason.

7. The Opposite Party No. 2 by suppressing all the complaints pending against her and the civil suit filed by her husband (TS 119 of 2017) made a false complaint dated 03.01.2018 before Baruipur police station which is under different jurisdiction, but Baruipur police station started Baruipur Police Station Case No. 14/18 dated 03.01.2018 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of IPC.

8. It is further stated that the allegations have been made by the Opposite Party No. 2 with the only intention of harassing the petitioners.

FINDINGS:-

9. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 in the FIR is that on 26.02.2018 at about 11.00 hrs, Accused Anupam Sardar and Anamika Sardar along with their mother came to Baruipur Court for lodging a case against the complainant. The complainant being an advocate, then informed the Bar Association of Baruipur Court. On the protest of the Advocates of Baruipur Court, the accused persons left the Court. Thereafter, when the complainant returned from Court, the accused persons allegedly attacked, assaulted and pushed the complainant.

10. It appears from the record that the petitioner No. 1 has filed a complaint with the police on 03.06.2016 regarding the torture by the Opposite Party No. 2 & her husband. The mother of the Petitioner No.1 also lodged an FIR being no. 2051/17 dated 22.10.2017 under Sections 341/506/120B/34 of IPC. Injury Report of the Petitioner No.1 dated 03.06.2016 showing Blunt trauma on the nose and face with bleeding, is on record.

11. From the case diary placed by the State, it appears that the case against the petitioners has been filed on 03.01.2018.

12. Charge Sheet has