Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 61

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Pratima Chowdhury & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
CRR 1548 of 2022 with CRAN 4 of 2024
Decided on : 10-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Milon Mukherjee, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri.
For the State : Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Ms. Sreeparna Das.

The court emphasized that criminal proceedings must be quashed if they lack prima facie evidence, preventing abuse of the judicial process.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 506/34 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of threats and derogatory remarks made against the complainant - Insufficient evidence in case diary to support allegations - Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. (Paras 1, 15, 16)

(B) Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC - High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings - Must be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice - Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a weapon of harassment. (Paras 9, 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, mother-in-law and husband of the complainant, were accused of threatening her to withdraw a prior case under Section 498A IPC. The complainant alleged derogatory remarks were made against her caste.

Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie evidence in the case diary to support the allegations, indicating that the proceedings were maliciously instituted.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted an offence under the SC/ST Act and if the proceedings should be quashed due to lack of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence supporting the allegations warranted quashing the proceedings, emphasizing that the High Court must prevent misuse of the judicial process.

Result: Proceedings quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with Special Case No. 20/2022 arising out of Shibpur P.S. Case No. 26/2022 dated 31.01.2022 under Sections 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending before the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act, 1989), Howrah whereby charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 50/2022 dated 28.02.2022 under Sections 195A/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners herein are the mother-in-law and husband of the de facto complainant.

3. In the petition of complaint, in the present case which was registered on 31.01.2022, the complainant has stated that she has also filed another case being Shibpur P.S. Case No. 302/21 under Sections 498A/406/313/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein.

4. It is further stated in the written complaint that her ‘streedhan’ articles were not recovered in spite of search being conducted on 05.09.2021 in the house of the petitioners herein.

5. The allegation in the present case is that:-

“On 29.01.2022 at about 10.30 a.m., the de facto complainant had gone to the Court of learned CJM, Howrah in the afternoon. When she was returning from meeting her advocate, at that time in front of the gate of Zila Parisad, the petitioners allegedly threatened her to withdraw the said case under Section 498A along with other sections. As she raised protest the petitioners pounced on her and used defamatory, vulgar, derogatory and filthy languages by saying 'sunri' i.e. Scheduled Caste and they further abused her and, as such, the present case has been registered.”

6. The State has placed the case diary.

7. It appears that there is only the statement of one witness in the case diary wherein it appears that the said witness does not claim that he heard utterance of any word which was derogatory or capable of insulting the complainant as regards her ‘caste’.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has not been complied with in the present case.

9. In Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993, Criminal Appeal No(s). ……… of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022), the Supreme Court held:-

(2017) 13 SCC 369

“22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court. Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated :

"7. … In the exercis