Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. Sachin Kumar Gupta & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Mrs. Malashree Biswas – Respondent
C.R.R. 976 of 2015
Decided On : 26-07-2024
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 120B, 34 - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, interpreting the allegations as mala fide and lacking sufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements under the CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, bank employees, were accused of abusing and threatening the husband of the opposite party over loan repayment issues, leading to a complaint filed against them under various IPC sections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations were vague, lacked specific details, and were likely filed to avoid loan repayment, thus constituting an abuse of the court process.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were maintainable given the nature of the allegations and the procedural compliance under the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners and emphasized the necessity of following procedural mandates, particularly Section 202 of the CrPC.
Result: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and set aside the issuance of process.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. By filing this criminal revisional application, the petitioners being the accused persons prayed for quashing of proceedings being Complaint Case No. 256C of 2014 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah under Sections 323/504/506/509/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein.
2. The brief facts, leading to filing of this instant criminal revisional application, are as under:
2a. The petitioner no. 1 is the Legal Manager of an HDFC Bank Limited and petitioner no. 2 is an Assistant Vice President of the said bank. They have been arraigned as accused persons in a Complaint Case No. 256C of 2014 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/504/506/509/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code with an allegation as, inter alia, as follows:
“That the husband of the opposite party had taken loan from HDFC Bank Limited, Gillander House, 1st Floor, 8, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001. Some instalments fell due, as the family of the opposite party was facing some financial trouble. On 21.04.2014 the accused nos. 1 and 2 of the said Bank over telephone abused the husband of the opposite party in most filthy languages. They also threatened to face dire consequences. Though the husband of the opposite party requested them that he would pay the instalment as early as possible. On the same day i.e. on 21.04.2014, the accused nos. 1 and 2 again made a call which was received by the opposite party. They asked about the husband of the opposite party. The opposite party politely replied about her husband’s absence, but the said accused persons began to rebuke and scolded the opposite party. The husband of the opposite party had diarized the matter with Bowbazar Police Station on 21.04.2014 being G.D. Entry No. 2278/14 and with Netaji Nagar Police Station being G.D. Entry No. 2913/14.
Again on 23.04.2014 at about 2 pm, the aforesaid accused persons came at the door step of the opposite party and demanded the instalments. The husband of the opposite party politely asked for one month time. The accused persons became very furious and began to abuse and humiliate the husband of the opposite party. The opposite party interfered and objected to such languages. The accused persons pushed the opposite party aside by catching her hair. The accused persons abused in obscene languages. In the meantime, neighbouring people came and requested the accused persons to grant time to the husband of the opposite party to repay the loan. The accused persons went away giving threat to the complainant. The complainant went to the nearest Dasnagar Police Station, but police has not taken any action.”
Consequently, complainant filed court complaint against the petitioners.
2b. In pursuance of receipt of the petition of complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, by his order dated 25.04.2014, was pleased to take cognizance of the offences allegedly disclosed in the said petition of complaint and was further pleased to transfer the case to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah for judicial enquiry and trial.
2c. Upon examination of the opposite party on solemn affirmation under Section 200 of the Cr.PC and upon perusal of the petition of complaint and the documents, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah vide his order dated 19.06.2014, issued process against the petitioners for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/504/506/509/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present application.
2d. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that some times in the month of January, 2010 the husband of the opposite party had approached the said bank for financial help in the nature of a personal loan.
2e. The said bank had duly processed the loan application submitted by the husband of the opposite party and agreed to finance a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-to the husband of the opposite party. It was agreed that th
AI
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if they are manifestly mala fide and lack sufficient evidence, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance.
Vague allegations without specific roles attributed to accused do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings, necessitating quashing to prevent abuse of process of law.
Complaint filed by the respondent No.2 would be barred by Section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code being successive prosecution as for the very set of allegations, earlier complaint filed by th....
Criminal Revision - Party who files a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., but fails, cannot move the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.Bar contained under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., would....
Claims of financial misconduct made after significant delays raise doubts about their legitimacy, especially in domestic disputes.
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 judgment establishes that complaints involving civil disputes should not be converted into criminal proceedings, and emphasizes the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused is....
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
