Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debasish Das & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 9 April, 2019
Author: Subhasis Dasgupta
Bench: Subhasis Dasgupta
In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.
CRR No. 317 of 2019
Debasish Das & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the petitioners : Mr. Debanshu Ghori, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Binay Kumar Panda, Adv.
Ms. Puspita Saha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Debasis Kar, Adv.
Mr. Arka Chakraborty, Adv.
Judgement on : 09.04.2019
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. Case No.501 of 2018, arising out of Ghola Police Station Case No.50/18 dated 01.02.2018 under Section 498A/323/326/325/354B/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.
The contention raised by the revisionists in this case was that a property dispute was attempted to be colourised by initiating a criminal proceeding with an aim to harass the revisionists/petitioners capitalising such property dispute. According to revisionists, pending proceeding was purposive, oppressive frivolous and mala fide one.
Learned advocate for the private opposite party No.2 (de facto complainant) submitted that when chargesheet had been submitted in this case collecting sufficient materials against the revisionists, the instant proceedings should not be allowed to be quashed without holding a trial.
Learned advocate, Mr. Panda representing State of West Bengal producing the copy of the materials already collected in the CD submitted that sufficient materials had been there to reveal a prima facie case against the accused persons, and thus contended that there could not be any quashment of the instant proceeding, as sought for by revisionists, ignoring the prima facie materials being collected against them.
Admittedly Chandana Das (de facto complainant) being wife of Pradip Das submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C, which was forwarded to police for investigation by an order of the Court. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the revisionist/accused persons under Section 498A/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the FIR materials were there to reveal that de facto complainant had been put to suffer cruelty, harassment and oppression in her in law's house for the non-satisfaction of the items presented at the time of marriage of the de facto complainant by her in laws members. There was further demand of money which could not be satisfied for the poverty in the parental house of the de facto complainant. More than once victim was subjected to physical assault, insult, humilitation and ultimately driven out from her matrimonial home subsequent to 19th January, 2018. The de facto complainant delivered three (3) children after her marriage, which was solemnised on 4th December, 1997.
Admitted position is that the petitioner No.1 is the younger brother of the husband of the de facto complainant, while petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of de facto complainant being wife of petitioner No.1.
After demise of parents-in-law of petitioners and the de facto complainant as well, trouble in the family cropped up over their property matters.
Learned advocate for the revisionists submitted with much emphasis that when petitioner No.2 was given marriage with petitioner No.1 on 03.03.01 i.e. 4 years after the marriage of de facto complainant, the petitioner No.2 had no occasion to receive stridhan articles and to perpetrate cruelty upon the de facto complainant over demand of money and further to express dissatisfaction with respect to the items presented at the time of marriage of de facto complainant. Thus according to revisionists, it was thus quite impossible to perpetrate cruelty upon the de facto complainant, even after the date of the marriage of petitioner No.2 with petitioner No.1. Further argument was raised by the revisionists that the allegation made in the complaint, even if they were taken at their face value, and accepted their entirety, would not constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioners, and further that the complaint suffered from absurdity, being inherently improbable, on the basis of which, there could not be any reasonable presumption that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners.
The power under Section 482 is excisable under the following three (3) circumstances.
(i) to give effect to an order contained in the Code.
(ii) To prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
(iii) To secure the ends of justice otherwise.
While exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P.C, the Court is under an obligation to hold an enquiry with respect to the materials produced to the extent, it is necessary to find it out whether a prima facie case is made out or not. The materials already collected in the CD were highly reflective of a property dispute pending between the parties. Parties to this case were also at variance with over the pension drawn by their deceased mother-in-law. There is existence of two other cases, one under Section 107 Cr. P.C and another under Section 144 Cr. P.C pending between the parties transpiring animosity between the parties. Existence of animosity alone neither would establish mala fide, nor frivolous as regards pending proceeding when contrary version surfaced during in investigation collecting prima facie materials. Property dispute giving rise to animosity between the parties may give rise to some sort of defence, which might be put up as defence during trial, but the same can not be taken to be ground for quashing.
There were materials collected during the course of investigation to reveal that the de facto complainant received insult, physical assault etc. in the hands of revisionists/petitioners. It came to be surfaced further that such perpetration of cruelty were made to deprive the de facto complainant from her ancestral property. Upon consideration of the materials together with the rival submissions, raised by the parties to this case, the Court is of the view that sufficient materials were there for proceeding against the petitioners.
True it is that petitioner No.2 found her access to her matrimonial home where de facto complainant also lived together, four (4) years after the marriage of de facto complainant, that does not necessarily mean that petitioner No.2 had no occasion to perpetrate any crime even after being married, more particularly in a case where the de facto complainant left her matrimonial home under a compelling circumstances after being tortured and oppressed by the petitioners spending there continues period of more than 20 years in the matrimonial home.
The revisionists/petitioners are not remediless at the moment, because enough opportunities are left upon before them to raise the issue, now raised, at the time of conducting trial.
Regard being had to the materials collected during investigation, as produced, it cannot be concluded with all certainty that by putting up the petitioners to trial upon rejecting their prayer for quashing, there will be an abuse of the process of Court.
The revisional application fails being without any merits. Liberty is however, given to revisionists to raise the points, now raised at the time of trial. The learned Trial Jude shall address all the issues, if any raised by the revisionists, in accordance with law, giving sufficient opportunity to either of the parties to this case.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)