Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jagannath Mallick & Ors vs Unknown on 18 September, 2025
18.09.2025
Ct. No. 446
Item No.7
KS
C.R.R. 440 of 2025
In the matter of: Jagannath Mallick & Ors.
...... Petitioners
Ms. Manisha Sharma
Mr. Amanul Islam
.....For the State
1.Affidavit of service filed in Court be taken on record. It appears from the affidavit of service that the opposite party no.2 has refused to accept the envelope, which has returned with the postal endorsement "Refused". Therefore, in absence of the opposite parties, the matter is heard in presence of the learned advocate representing the opposite party no.1/State.
2. This instant criminal revisional application has been filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing of proceedings and the First Information Report initiated under Narendrapur Police Station Case No.1033 of 2024 dated 27th August, 2024 under Sections 85/ 74/ 117(2)/ 351 (1)/ 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the petition is that the petitioner no.1 is a Senior Citizen and the opposite party nos.1 and 2 being the parents-in-law and opposite party no.2 was married to the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 on 14th June, 2014. Later on some marital dispute cropped up and the daughter-in-law/opposite party no.2 displayed arrogant behaviour towards the parents-in-law and she often gets offended for requisition to do some household work and always shown her annoyance and irritation towards them.
4. Further the case of the petitioners are that after few years of marriage, the relatives and the family members of the opposite party no.2 2 demanded from the petitioner no.1 to transfer of his assets and immovable property in favour of the opposite party no.2 and his son Rajdeep Mallick and as the petitioner no.1 refused to accept such demand, the relatives of the opposite party no.2 threatened them with dire consequences.
5. The further dispute cropped up regarding the shop at Chadni Chowk of which, the petitioner no.1 is the owner and as he refused to accept the demand of the family members, the opposite party no.2 and her husband being the son of the petitioner became furious and assaulted him in the shop situated at Chadni Chowk on 26th August, 2024. The situation became worsen when the present petitioner no.1 was brutally assaulted by the family members of opposite party no.2 and even pushed him and thereby he sustained injuries and over the said incident, a complaint was lodged under Sections 115(2)/ 126 (2)/ 54/ 351 of the B.N.S., 2023 before the Bowbazar Police Station being Case No.173 of 2024 against the opposite party no.2 and the son of the present petitioner nos.1 and 2 and in laws of his son. Thereafter, on 27th August, 2024, the opposite party no.2, as a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner no.1 filed the complaint falsely implicating the present petitioners therein before the Narendrapur Police Station Case No.1033 of 2024.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the present petitioners submits that the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the present petitioner no.1 alongwith others, who are aged person and the others are distant relatives and are no way connected with the instant case and filed this application for quashing the proceeding and the First Information Report.
3
7. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 since she refused to accept the revisional application.
8. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1/State submits that in this case after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted on 20th September, 2024, where Section 117 (2) has not been mentioned and the charge has been submitted under Section 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on a careful perusal of the petition of complaint lodged, prima facie, shows that the alleged incident took place on 18th August, 2024 and also the complainant expressed the day to day physical and mental torture inflicted upon him and his wife by the daughter-in-law. The subsequent complaint, as filed by the opposite party no.2 dated 31st August, 2024 also pertains to such incident dated 18th August, 2024 when it has been alleged that she was physically assaulted by all the in-laws, but admittedly, the said complaint has been lodged in respect of the incident on 18th August, 2024 after a delay of almost 13 days without giving any such explanation for such delay.
10. That apart, as far the charge-sheet and the Case Diary, as mentioned before this Court by the learned advocate appearing for the State that the injury is not grievous in nature. That apart, the present accused persons were all enlarged on bail as also can be found from the record.
11. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. C. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the parameters were given under which circumstances, the Court can invoke the jurisdiction under 4 Section 528 of B.N.S. corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are as follows:-
"102. (1) where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under /section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within parameters 1, 5 and 7, respectively, of Bhajan Lal."
12. That apart, further in the decision of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana in 2024 INSC 369 in para 22 it was observed that important facts are to be considered is that if the case is continued to be proceeded with, whether it would amount to the process of abuse of law or not.
13. The plaint reading of the complaint indicates the nature of allegation levelled against the present petitioners are vague and is primarily omnibus in nature. Subsequently in the charge-sheet, also the charges 5 under Section 117(2) is negated far back of materials though the allegations were levelled by the de facto complainant being opposite party no.2 herein. The present petitioners are the parents-in-law and the petitioner no.1 being a Septuagenarian person.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where if the trial is allowed to be commenced against these petitioners it would be a gross abuse of the process of law.
15. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that invoking the Section 528 of B.N.S., 2023, this revisional application should be allowed and the proceeding under Narendrapur Police Station Case No.1033 of 2024 dated 27th August, 2024 under Sections 85/ 74/ 117(2)/ 351 (1)/ 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 should be quashed.
16. With this above observation, criminal revisional application being, C.R.R. 440 of 2025 stands disposed of.
17. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)