IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Subhendu Samanta, J.
Smt. Aniva Mukherjee(Chakraborty) & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Opposite Parties
C.R.R. No. – 4034 of 2017 With IA No. CRAN 2 of 2018(Old No. CRAN 413 of 2018) CRAN 15 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2024
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482, 156(3) - The court emphasized the need for substantiated allegations in FIRs and the misuse of legal processes for personal vendettas, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a charge sheet related to allegations of attempted murder and other offenses stemming from a marital dispute, claiming the charges were baseless and maliciously filed to harass them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not substantiate any offense, highlighting the lack of credible evidence and the malicious intent behind the prosecution, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners were maintainable or constituted an abuse of the court's process due to lack of substantiated evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, determining that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offense and were initiated with mala fide intent.
Result: The criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing a proceeding being charge sheet No. 221 of 2017 corresponding to GR Case No. 24 of 2017 arising out of Durgapur PS Case No. 11 of 2017 dated 4th January 2017 u/s 341/323/307/420/506/34 of IPC now pending before the court of Learned Additional District Judge Durgapur, being sessions case No. 163 of 2017.
2. The fact of the instant case as demonstrated by the petitioner is as follows:
The OP No. 2 filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WP No. 19427 (W) of 2017/2016 challenging the alleged illegal action of one Doctor Asish Chatterjee, Senior Deputy Director, DSP hospital Durgapur and also against a report of Police Commissioner/Commissioner of Police Assansole, Durgapur Police Commissionerate dated 11.02.2016 wherein they are opined that the complaint of the OP 2 could not substantiated during inquiry in view of discharge/ medical certificate issued by DSP hospital.
3. The case of the complainant/ OP 2 before the commissioner of police was as follows:
He stated that on 01.09.2012 when he went to his in laws house to perform his duty and obligation as husband of the accused/petitioner No. 1, at Gopal Math, Jagarbandu plot, at about 18 Hrs, the accused persons did not give him any respect as son-in-law, nor was he served with food with shelter. He remaind on the stare case. At about 8:00a.m. on 2nd September 2012, accused No. 1 and 2 with the instigation of mother-in-law and brother-in-law, kept complainant tightening of hands and legs with rope and thereafter they jointly poured poison in the mouth of the complaint and he became unconscious. Thereafter he was brought to DSP Hospital for treatment by the accused persons and admitted him without giving intimation to the complainants mother, brother and other near relative. On 3rd September, 2012 accused No. 2 at about 11:00 am informed the complainant’s younger brother Sushanta Chakraborty, about the said incident. The complainant however, was discharged from the hospital on 04.09.2012 at about 04:00 p.m.
It is also the complainant’s case that admission under DSP Hospital is totally under the cloud of ill intentions of the part of the accused persons because they did neither inform the nearby police station of the occurrence nor followed the proper procedure of admission of complainant in the hospital. In the said writ petition, the opposite No. 2 filed a Xerox copy of discharged certificate of DSP Hospital which belied the story of purporting/ pouring poison in his mouth by the accused persons.
4. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 15 of September 2016 with a finding and observation that having regard to the lapse of time between the alleged incident and the date when the commissioner was approached as also fact that the OP 2 did not the approach the OC of the Local PS earlier.
Thereafter the OP 2 filed a complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.PC. before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Durgapur which contained similar allegations made before the commissioner of police Asansole. The said complaint was forwarded to the OC Durgapur PS on the basis of which Durgapur PS case No. 11 of 2017 was started. Subsequently, a charge sheet in the said case being charge-sheet no. 221 of 2017 was submitted on the basis of the investigation against the petitioner herein u/s 341/342/323/307/420/526/34 of IPC.
It is the further case of the present petitioners that the charge sheet does not contained any seizure or any injury report and prepared in a perfunctory manner.
5. Hence this revision.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee argued that the petitioner No. 1 and the OP No. 2 married each other by performing Hindu Rites and subsequently getting the said marriage registered under Special Marriage Act on 11th of December 2011, after both of them got their earlier marriage di
The court established that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they are found to be maliciously instituted without substantiated allegations.
The court held that proceedings under Section 498A IPC were malicious and lacked evidentiary support, justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings if they are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, as established in 'Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v.....
The court emphasized the necessity to quash criminal proceedings when allegations do not constitute an offence, especially in matrimonial disputes resolved amicably with mutual consent and alimony.
The court established that repetitive complaints lacking substantial evidence against the accused can constitute malicious prosecution, warranting quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of legal pr....
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.