Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Puja Mohta @ Pooja Mohta & Anr vs Unknown on 14 May, 2024
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
14.05.2024
Serial no. 34
[G.S.D]
CRR 1627 of 2023
With
CRAN 1 of 2024
In the matter of : Puja Mohta @ Pooja Mohta & Anr.
... ... Petitioners
Ms. Subhasree Patel
Ms. Saini Das
... for the petitioners
Mr. Rachit Lakhwani
Mr. Nikunj Berlia
Ms. Mosaraf Reyaz
... for the Private Respondent
Ms. Sonali Das Mr. Nirupam Dhali ... for the State This revisional application has been preferred for final disposal along with the connected application.
The petitioners being the sister-in-laws, namely, Puja Mohta @ Pooja Mohta and Sheetal Mundhra have prayed for quashing of the proceedings in respect of Topsia Police Station Case No. 42 of 2021 dt. 22.3.2021 under sections 498A/406/506/494/34 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which is pending before the ld. ACJM, Sealdah.
Ld. advocate for the State has produced the case diary.
2I find from the Case Diary that the investigation of the case was concluded and charge-sheet was submitted before the ld. Jurisdictional Court against the eight accused persons including the present petitioners under the provisions of the IPC and the DP Act.
Ld. advocate for the State has drawn the attention of the court to the statement of all the witnesses in the Case Diary, namely, Sheetal Lahoti, Dinesh Sharma, Kamal Kr. Agarwal, Madhu Agarwal, Sumit Bhatt, Vikash Mahipal, Abdul Hamid and Nayanika Goswami as also the statement of Sheetal Lahoti under section 164 of the cr.p.c. before the ld. Magistrate and a copy of the reply letter from the Deputy CMHO, Health Department, KMC.
I have taken into account the statement of the aforesaid witnesses and the culpability by the present petitioners, who are the two sister-in-laws. Although, there is a general allegation in the statement under section 161 of the cr.p.c. by the defacto-complainant namely, Sheetal Lahoti against all the inmates of the matrimonial house including the present petitioners, but, in the statement recorded under section 164 of the cr.p.c. before the ld. Magistrate, there is not even iota of allegations against the present petitioners.
So far as the allegations of the parents of the defacto-complainant namely, Kamal Kr. Agarwal and Madhu 3 Agarwal against the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations are neither specific nor any culpability or any overt act on the part of the present petitioners have been reflected in their statements.
On an analysis of the particular grievance of the defacto-complainant, I find that the main thrust of the allegation is against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law, brother-in-law and his wife.
The genesis of all the disputes and its intensity is on the husband itself which relates to his life style, alleged association with other women and physical torture being inflicted upon the defacto-complainant.
Added to that is the behavior of the father in law and the mother in law and certain incidents which have been described in respect of the brother in law and his wife also. The present petitioners are married, while, one of them i.e., Puja Mohata @ Pooja Mohta stays at Mumbai and the other, namely, Sheetal Mundhra, resides at S. N. Roy Road, New Alipore, Kolkata at a different part of the city.
Having regard to the allegations which are reflected, at this stage, when charge-sheet has been submitted so far as the present petitioners are concerned, I am of the view that the narration and/or allegations which are reflected in few of the statements would be too harsh to ask these petitioners to face the ordeal of criminal trial when one of 4 them is staying completely at a different place and the other petitioner, although stays in the same city, but completely at a different location.
In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr.-vs- State of U.P. & Anr. [reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741], the Hon'ble Supreme Court while implicating the married sister in laws have set out guidelines, who are residing at a separate place and/or far off place and emphasized not to implicate them mechanically in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute and discord.
The summary of the allegations, if taken as a whole, do reflect that these petitioners had no interference into the day to day affairs or the manner in which the in-laws family of the defacto-complainant behaved with the defacto- complainant. There were no demand for dowry from the end of these petitioners and the only allegations is relating to a single statement being made initially, wherein, all the eight accused persons were implicated regarding the physical assault. There is no specific date and/or event which has been narrated by the defacto-complainant, which subsequently dilutes the position with the statement under section 164 of the defacto-complainant itself before the ld. Judicial Magistrate.
Having taken into account the chronology of events, the statement of the witnesses, the locus of the present 5 petitioners and the main thread of allegations running throughout in the complaint, I am of the view that, at this stage, further continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners may result in harassment and, as such, further proceedings against the present petitioners, namely, Puja Mohta @ Pooja Mohta and Sheetal Mundhra in connection with Topsia Police Station Case No. 42 of 2021 dt. 22.3.21 before the ld. ACJM, Sealdah is hereby quashed.
However, the ld. trial court would be at liberty to invoke the provisions of section 319 of the cr.p.c., if, in course of evidence, any materials surfaces against them.
With the aforesaid observations, CRR 1627 of 2023 is Allowed.
Pending application, if any, is also disposed of. Report so submitted be kept with the record. Case Diary be returned to the ld. advocate for the State.
Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)