Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sushmita Deosharan Roy @ Susmita Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 15 November, 2018
Author: Asha Arora
Bench: Asha Arora
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Asha Arora
C.R.R. 244 of 2017
Sushmita Deosharan Roy @ Susmita Roy.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Another.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee
Mr. Z. Elahi.
For the State : Mr. Rana Mukherjee,
Ms. Debjani Sahu.
Heard on : 15.11.2018
Judgement on : 15.11.2018
Asha Arora, J.:
The proceeding arising out of Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 9 of 2016 dated 24.01.2016 under Section 498A/406/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code being G.R. Case No. 423 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas has been assailed by the petitioner.
The facts in brief leading to the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are as follows :
On 24.01.2016 the opposite party no. 2 herein/defacto complainant lodged the FIR at Barrackpore P.S. against her husband Shyamal Ghosh, mother-in-law Namita Ghosh, sister-in-law Susmita Roy and husband's elder brother Monoj Ghosh alleging offences under Sections 498A/406/323/307 I.P.C. In the FIR the defacto complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein stated that on 10.08.2009 she was married to Shyamal Ghosh according to Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage her mother gave gold ornaments, bed, almirah and other household articles. After marriage she went to her matrimonial home at 113, Central Road, Kolkata where she started leading marital life. Since after her marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and elder brother of husband. On 24.01.2016 at about 4 P.M. when the complainant was in her father's house at Shibtala, her husband suddenly entered the room and tried to kill her by strangulating her with "orna" whereupon she cried for help and was rescued by some neighbours. She was medically treated at Barrackpore Cantonment Hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 09 of 2016 dated 24.01.2016 was registered. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under sections 498A/307/323/406 I.P.C. against the above named four accused persons namely, the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband's elder brother. The petitioner herein is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2/defacto complainant who is residing at Mumbai in her matrimonial home and is in no way connected with the offences alleged. It is argued that there is no specific act attributed to this petitioner in the First Information Report and she has been roped in falsely on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations. The ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly wanting insofar as this petitioner is concerned. It is pointed out that according to the FIR the marriage of the opposite party no. 2/defacto complainant was solemnized on 10.08.2009 whereas the petitioner got married long before on 30.11.2006 and has been residing in her in-laws house at Mumbai. It is argued that the main allegation is against the husband, mother-in- law and elder brother of the husband who reside in the same household. Since the First Information Report does not disclose any specific overt act as regards this petitioner, continuation of the criminal proceeding against her is an abuse of the process of law. Hence the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding qua the petitioner. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the case of Chandralekha and others - versus - State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 374 paragraphs 3 and 9 and Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others - versus - State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 769 paragraphs 16, 17 and 18.
Learned counsel appearing for the State could not seriously contest the submission on behalf of the petitioner on the point that the allegation against the petitioner is vague and unspecific. It is pointed out that though the charge-sheet has been filed against this petitioner along with three co-accused, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose general allegation of torture against this petitioner.
It appears that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner who is admittedly the married sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The other three co-accused namely, the husband, mother-in-law and elder brother of husband have also been charge-sheeted. What needs to be taken into consideration is the totality of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Having perused the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the material in the Case Diary it appears that the allegation of torture against the petitioner is general in nature. No specific role is attributed to her in respect of the offences alleged. On the other hand, the case diary reveals sufficient material against the husband, mother-in- law and elder brother of husband. Hence the proceeding insofar as it relates to the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
For the reasons aforestated, the proceeding arising out of Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 09 of 2016 dated 24.01.2016 (G.R. Case No. 423 of 2016) insofar as it relates to the petitioner Sushmita Deosharan Roy @ Susmita Roy is quashed. The aforesaid proceeding of G.R. Case No. 423 of 2016 against the other three co- accused shall proceed in accordance with law.
The application being C.R.R. 244 of 2017 is thus disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Asha Arora, J.) P.M.