Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajib Kumar Sinha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 November, 2017
Author: Debi Prosad Dey
Bench: Debi Prosad Dey
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debi Prosad Dey
CRR No. 2883 of 2016
Rajib Kumar Sinha & Ors..................................Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr..........Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Koushik Dey
For the Opposite : Mr. Kallol Mondal
Party No.2 : Mr. Krishan Roy
: Mr. Amrita Chel
For the State
: Mr. Imran Ali
: Ms. Debjani Sahu
Heard on : 16.06.2017, 20.07.2017, 03.08.2017
Judgment on : 15.11.2017
Debi Prosad Dey, J. :-
The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Arambag Women police station case no. 05 of 2016 dated 25.01.2016 under Section 498A/323/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act corresponding to GR case no. 178 of 2016, culminated in charge sheet no. 25 of 2016 dated 27th June, 2016, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambag, Hooghly on the ground that opposite party no.2 had filed a case under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner but the same was subsequently compromised between the parties and the petitioners were acquitted from that case. The opposite party no.2 has again filed a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner with the self-same allegations and accordingly in view of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal procedure read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India the petitioners cannot be subjected to double jeopardy and the case under reference ought to be quashed forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Koushik Dey appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners cannot be subjected to double jeopardy and since the opposite party no.2 has filed another case with the self-same allegations against the petitioners, the entire case ought to be quashed in view of the protection given under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 contended that in fact the earlier case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was amicably settled between the parties and the petitioners were acquitted from that case vide judgment of GR case no. 785 of 2014, annexure A. Learned Advocate for opposite party no.2 further contended that thereafter the opposite party no.2 again returned to her matrimonial home and during her stay in her matrimonial home she was again subjected to torture by the petitioners and the petitioners forced the opposite party no.2 to sign on a blank paper and thereby opposite party no.2 was subjected to severe mental and physical torture by the petitioners and finally they drove her out from her matrimonial home. The opposite party no.2 has specifically stated in her First Information Report that the petitioners compromised the earlier case only in order to withdraw the suspension of petitioner no.1 and as soon as petitioner no.1 resumed his service, petitioner no.1 and others had again started mental and physical torture upon opposite party no.2 and that is why the case under reference was started at the behest of opposite party no.2.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that both the cases were started on different causes of action and accordingly it cannot be said that the petitioners have been subjected to double jeopardy. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that the allegations levelled by opposite party no.2 have been duly investigated by the investigating agency and ultimately the case has been culminated in filing of charge sheet. There is absolutely no scope to accept the contention of learned Advocate of the petitioners and the revisional application ought to be dismissed.
On careful scrutiny of both the first information reports, it is apparent on the face of the record that the causes of action of both the cases are absolutely different. The first case was amicably settled between the parties. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 started residing with the petitioners in her matrimonial home. The opposite party no.2 was again subjected to severe mental and physical torture and she was forced to sign on a blank paper by the petitioners. Ultimately, the opposite party no.2 was driven out from the house of the petitioners. That clearly goes to show that there was sufficient cause of action on the part of opposite party no.2 to lodge the second first information report against the petitioners. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that by lodging the second first information report, the petitioners were subjected to double jeopardy in view of filing of such case by opposite party no.2. The principle of double jeopardy is not at all applicable in the context of the given facts and circumstances of this case. In that view of this case I find no merit in the case.
The revisional application being devoid of merit is dismissed. The CRAN No.4871 of 2016 is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy be forwarded to the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambag, Hooghly for information and necessary action.
Stay order if there by any is vacated.
No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)