IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sanat Kumar Sikdar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 2464 of 2021
Decided On : 04-04-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 325, 498A - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of mental cruelty and injury - The court found no prima facie case against the accused as the complainant's injuries were due to a medical condition, not inflicted harm - The court emphasized the misuse of Section 498A and the need for specific allegations against relatives to avoid abuse of legal process. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Power to quash FIR - The court reiterated that the High Court retains the power to quash FIRs even after a chargesheet is filed, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of allegations to prevent misuse of legal provisions. (Paras 11, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged mental cruelty and injury by her husband and in-laws, but medical evidence indicated her condition was due to a pre-existing medical issue.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the proceedings against the accused, stating that allowing the case to proceed would be an abuse of the legal process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations against the in-laws were specific or general and whether they warranted a trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that general allegations without specific instances do not justify proceeding with a trial against relatives, highlighting the potential for misuse of Section 498A IPC.
Result: Proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record. In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant.
2. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. No. 5097 of 2018 arising out of Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 342 of 2018 dated 27.03.2018 under Sections 341/325/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.
3. The allegations made by the opposite party no. 1/de facto complainant is to the effect that:-
“At present I reside in my matrimonial home. As I reside in my matrimonial home, I am subjected to various mental cruelty by my husband. A few days back when I had to visit my lawyer at Barrackpore regarding discussion of a case and I returned to my matrimonial home and went to sleep early in the night, as I was not feeling well, I did not close the door. All on a sudden on getting up from my sleep, when I tried to get up from the bed, I experienced severe pain at in my waist and found at that time that the door of my room was open. I somehow managed to get up and closed the door and entered the mosquito net and went to sleep. Whole night I experienced severe pain in my waist and, as such, I could not sleep rest of the night. Next morning as I could not move due to the pain and as the Orthopedic Doctor was not available on that day, I somehow tolerated my pain throughout the day and night. The next day went to the doctor. On total check up, the doctor asked if I had fallen down somewhere. I answered „no’. At that time the doctor stated that I had suffered injury in my waist. The Doctor asked me to come with my husband so that rest of the test could be carried out. In spite of showing my prescription to my husband he did not meet my doctor. The doctor then again stated that I had suffered injury in my waist. As I have not fallen down anywhere the question is how did I sustain the said injury. As such I suspect that on that night when the door had been left open and I was sleeping at that time someone injured my waist as a divorce case is sub judice. My husband and in-laws are trying to somehow oust me from my matrimonial home by inflicting mental cruelty for which I have already filed a G.D.”
4. The learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary, wherein it appears that some medical reports have been collected in respect of the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant which are at page 3 to 11 of the case dairy. On perusal of the same it is found that the said prescriptions are connected to the pain on the waist of which the de facto complainant has stated in her written complaint.
5. The MRI report at page 8 and 9 of the case dairy shows that the doctor has opined canal stenosis at LS-S1 level and degenerative disc & spine disease. As such, this prima facie appears to be the reason for the pain on the waist. Thus the pain that the de facto complainant has stated about in her written complaint is because of the said disease and not because of any such injury, nor is there any material on record to support the suspicion of the de facto complainant.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. Vs. Monica reported in (2009) 10 SCC 604 and Kalyan Panda & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online Cal 2639.
7. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, lays down:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause g
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr; (2014) 8 SCC 273
Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. Vs. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 693
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr; (2012) 10 SCC 741
K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana
Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr; (2010) 7 SCC 667
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr; (2018) 10 SCC 472
AI
The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations in Section 498A IPC cases to prevent misuse and quashed proceedings lacking prima facie evidence.
The court established that specific allegations are necessary to sustain a charge under Section 498A IPC, preventing misuse of the provision in matrimonial disputes.
The judgment emphasizes the need for specific allegations in cases involving Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and cautions against false implications by way of general omnibus allegations.
The judgment established the importance of specific allegations and cautioned against implicating relatives of the husband without prima facie evidence in cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal....
The court held that the ingredients required to constitute the offences under Sections 498A/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly absent in the present case and the allegations are general and....
In cases where the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet do not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the accused, the proceedings should be quashed.
General and omnibus allegations, without any specific act of cruelty attributed, do not constitute a cognizable offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and proceedings based on such alle....
The court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings where the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offense, or where the proceedings are an abuse of p....
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.