Sisir Mondal vs The State of West Bengal

R.K. Bag, J.—This revisional application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1274/2008 arising out of Purulia P.S. Case No. 157/2008 dated 24th December, 2008 u/s. 498A of the IPC pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.

It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner on 5th July, 1999 according to Hindu rites and religion. One child was born from this wedlock. The opposite party no. 2 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and his relatives continuously for considerable period of time. The opposite party no. 2 gave information in writing to the Officer-in-Charge of Purulia Police Station on 24th December, 2008 and the instant criminal case was started on the basis of the said written complaint submitted by the opposite party no. 2. The police investigated the case and ultimately submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons including the petitioner on 29th March, 2009 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had to start a criminal proceeding against the opposite party no. 2 for issuance of search warrant u/s 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22nd December, 2008 and the instant criminal proceeding was initiated by the opposite party no. 2 as counter-blast of the criminal proceeding initiated by the petitioner. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the allegation of torture inflicted on the opposite party no. 2 by the petitioner is totally false and the story made out by the opposite party no. 2 for initiating the proceeding u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the members of the family is also inherently improbable. Learned counsel also submits that the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 out of malice and that the investigation taken up by the police officers of Purulia Police Station is also beyond the jurisdiction, because only part of the cause of action of the criminal proceeding took place in Purulia as reflected from the charge sheet. Learned counsel further submits that the incidents giving rise to the cause of action for the offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of Purulia Police Station and as such, the initiation of the proceeding u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code at Purulia is not justified under the law.

On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel, representing the State has pointed out from the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that sufficient incriminating materials were collected by the investigating agency to prosecute the petitioner and the members of his family for commission of the offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

By following the proposition of law in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for exercise of inherent power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court in quashing the criminal proceeding in the case of Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, which is quoted hereunder:-

i) 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 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

ii) 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 u/s 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

iii) 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;

iv) 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 u/s 155(2) of the Code;

v) 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;

vi Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

vii) 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."

In the instant case, the contents of the written complaint treated as FIR disclose clearly the commission of offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, on consideration of the statements of the witnesses including the statements of the opposite party no. 2 recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other materials collected by the investigating agency, I find that any prudent and reasonable person can come to the conclusion that a case u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been made out. However, learned Magistrate will not be guided by the observations made by this Court at the time of consideration of the charge and will form opinion independent of the opinion of the investigating agency on the basis of the materials placed by the prosecuting agency.

On consideration of the materials available in the case diary, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the police officer investigating the instant criminal case had no jurisdiction to investigate the allegation made in the First Information Report. Nor can I persuade myself to hold that the instant criminal proceeding was initiated by the opposite party no. 2 against the petitioner as counter blust of the proceeding started by the petitioner u/s 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, and in the decision reported in Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, I cannot persuade myself to invoke the inherent power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1274/2008 arising out of Purulia P.S. Case No. 157/2008 dated 24th December, 2008 u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.

The criminal revision is, thus, dismissed.

The department is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the learned court below urgently.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.