AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:
In the instant revisional application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Petitioners have assailed the order dated 29th November, 2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in ACGR-71/21 arising out of Behala P.S. Case no. 3 of 2021 dated 05.01.2021 under Sections 498A/406/341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
By the said impugned order, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against all accused persons, including the present petitioners, who are the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant, under Sections 498A/406/341/323/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners also pray for quashing of the proceedings.
The sum and substance of this case is that the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 made an allegation, inter alia, to the effect that the accused persons viz. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, being her husband and in-laws, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to both mental and physical torture since the inception of her marriage for more dowry. They also misappropriated her “Stridhan” articles. She further alleged that her husband also wrongfully restrained her father and assaulted her with fists and blows on 22.01.2020. She made allegations against the present petitioners that they had called her husband over the phone and provoked him to torture her.
It was further alleged that the husband abused her and also assaulted her on several occasions on such provocation. Upon further provocation by the petitioners, the mother-in-law forced the de facto complainant to bring her jewellery lying in the locker; otherwise, she would not be allowed to stay in the matrimonial house and ultimately forced her to stay at her parental house in the month of October. She was forced to open the locker and handover her jewellery to her mother-in-law. It was further alleged that Petitioner no. 2 called her mother over the phone and provoked her to inflict torture upon the de facto complainant in different way. This resulted in registration of an F.I.R. being Behala P.S. Case No. 3 of 2021 dated 05.01.2021 under Sections 498A/406/341/323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After culmination of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted being No. 212 of 2021 dated 18th November, 2021 under Sections 498A/406/341/323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against six accused persons including the present petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court took cognizance against the accused persons, including the present petitioners.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of cognizance, the present petitioners have preferred this revisional application seeking aforesaid prayers.
Mr. Kali, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been residing outside West Bengal, in Bengaluru, since 2012, i.e., prior to the solemnization of the de facto complainant’s marriage. They have been falsely implicated in this case only to maliciously harass them without their involvement in any of the alleged offences. Even if taken at face value, the F.I.R. does not disclose a cognizable offence against them. Even after investigation, nothing adverse has been found against the present petitioners as regards the conversation over mobile phone and/or provocation. If such false and frivolous proceedings against the present petitioners continue, they would suffer and be prejudiced without any involvement in the matrimonial life of the de facto complainant.
It is further submitted that the de facto complainant herself admitted in her written complaint that she shared a sweet relationship with the present Petitioners over the phone; as such, Learned Counsel prays for quashing of the proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Learned counsel further contends that the FIR was lodged against the present petitioners with the ulterior motive to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members, making vague, general and omnibus allegations without mentioning specific date, time and manner of provocation against in-laws, who reside in another State. This would simply result in an abuse of process of law. He has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support his contention:-
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.1 particularly in paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21;
Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telengana & Anr.2 particularly in paragraph Nos. 33 and 34;
Geddam Jhansi & Anr. vs. State of Telengana & Ors.3 particularly in paragraph Nos. 31, 33, 35 and 38; and
Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.4 particularly in paragraph Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18 & 19.
Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the present petitioners and submits that the role of the present petitioners was vital in provoking the husband and mother-in-law. Mental and physical torture upon the opposite party no. 2 escalated as alleged due to continuous interference and provocation by the petitioners. The husband of the de facto complainant assaulted her on several occasions after such provocation. Therefore, they are liable to face trial to uncover the actual truth.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate representing the State produces the memo of evidence, the case diary and submits that during investigation, nothing found either CDR or the call details of the conversation between the petitioners and others as alleged. It is submitted that the mother of the opposite party no. 2 has stated against the accused persons without attributing any specific role to them. Finally, he left the matter to the discretion of the Court.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials on record including the case diary, the memo of evidence and the statement of the witnesses, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are absolutely vague and omnibus. No particular date, time and manner of provocation was revealed during investigation. Upon further careful perusal of the written complaint, it is revealed that allegations against the Petitioners are general and vague. No CDR and call details were collected during investigation. It does not establish the petitioners’ role in provoking to inflict torture, either physically or mentally or threatening her in any manner. No specific role has been attributed to the present petitioners with regard to cruelty to constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and other offences punishable under Sections 406/341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Even for the sake of argument, if the sister-in-law and her husband talk to the mother-in-law and husband of the de facto complainant over the phone, it is the usual state of affairs and does not indicate the commission of any offence, let alone amount to provocation.
The judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners bear directly upon the case at hand. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that omnibus and general allegations against the relatives of a husband, without any specific role being attributed to them, cannot sustain proceedings under Section 498A IPC and allied provisions, and that their continuation amounts to an abuse of the process of law. This was reiterated on closely analogous facts in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. (Supra), where relatives residing outside the State, implicated without any specific act being attributed to them, were held to have been wrongly roped in, and the proceedings were quashed qua them. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are set out hereinbelow:-
“33.Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
34.We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.”
In Geddam Jhansi & Anr. (Supra), it was held that invoking the criminal process is permissible only where specific acts constituting an offence are alleged, and a prima facie case is made out, and that criminalising domestic disputes on vague material may have disastrous consequences for the institution of the family. The observations of the Court, as held in paragraphs 31- 36 of the judgment, have been set out hereinbelow:-
“31.Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.
32.We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.
33.It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.
34.For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants.
35.We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.
36.Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.”
Therefore, this Court is fully satisfied that the ratio of these decisions applies squarely to the present facts and circumstances of the case, where, as noted hereinabove, no specific role of provocation, instigation or cruelty has been attributed to the present petitioners, and the allegations remain general and omnibus in nature.
This Court further relies upon the Judgment in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down seven illustrative categories for exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings. The present case falls within Category (1), where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose any offence against the accused; and Category (5), where the allegations are so vague and improbable that no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that sufficient ground exists to proceed. These categories are attracted given that the allegations against the present petitioners are general and omnibus, unsupported by any specific act, date, time or manner of provocation, and unaccompanied by any corroborative material such as call detail records.
Hence, this Court is of the opinion that if such proceedings continue against the petitioners, the conviction of the petitioners appears bleak and remote and is an absolute abuse of the process of law. To secure the ends of justice, the proceedings deserves to be quashed under the inherent power granted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
With the above observations and directions, CRR 2319 of 2025 stands allowed.
The Proceeding being ACGR-71/21 arising out of Behala P.S. Case no. 3 of 2021 dated 05.01.2021 under Sections 498A/406/341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the learned 10th Judicial Magistrate at Alipore is, thus, quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Consequently, connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Court below for information.
All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.