AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
UDAY KUMAR, J.: –
Matrimonial discord, when permitted to metastasize into the realm of criminal litigation, frequently transforms into a multi-jurisdictional battleground where domestic grievances morph into penal accusations. The present revisional application, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), brings to the fore this very phenomenon as the petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Asansol South Police Station Case No. 366 dated 14.10.2023 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2938 of 2023) initially registered as Asansol North Police Station Case No. 320 dated 09.08.2023, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 447, 448, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, currently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman, wherein a charge-sheet has since been submitted against the present petitioners.
A narrative woven with profound human suffering and escalating legal warfare forms the bedrock of this dispute. The matrimonial alliance between Opposite Party No. 2 (Sudipto Sinha) and the petitioners’ daughter, Kamalika De, was solemnized on 26.01.2014 at Kolkata and subsequently registered on 11.05.2015 under the laws of Karnataka. The couple set up their matrimonial home in Bengaluru, where a male child, Aayansh Sinha, was born on 03.05.2019 via Assisted Reproductive Technology (IUI).
Regrettably, marital harmony proved fleeting, severely compounded by profound medical afflictions. Post-childbirth, the petitioners’ daughter was diagnosed with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), a debilitating autoimmune disorder, which was further complicated by acute episodes of Bipolar Disorder in July 2022, necessitating urgent clinical hospitalization. The petitioners allege that this vulnerable phase was met with systemic medical neglect, economic deprivation, psychological torment, and an allegation of coercive demand to transfer ownership of immovable property situated in Asansol belonging to the husband’s family has been made against them. Driven by existential anxiety for their daughter’s safety, the petitioners intervened on 29.10.2022, escorting her back to her parental home in Dwarka, New Delhi, for intensive specialist management under Manipal Hospital and Dr. Sanjay Chugh.
Seeking legal redress and protection, the petitioners’ daughter instituted a series of proceedings in Delhi, comprising a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA No. 997 of 2023), a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Case No. 573 of 2023) instituted on 20.03.2023, and an FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC lodged on 19.08.2023 at Dwarka South Police Station (FIR No. 0385).
In direct temporal sequence to these legal recourses, Opposite Party No. 2 set the criminal machinery in motion in West Bengal. By filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he triggered the registration of Asansol North P.S. Case No. 320 dated 09.08.2023, subsequently transferred as Asansol South P.S. Case No. 366 dated 14.10.2023. The essence of the complaint is that on 10.06.2023 at around 9:00 AM, the petitioners comprising a 74-year-old retired corporate employee and a 62-year-old female relative, alongside other family members forcefully entered the husband's residence at Asansol, committed house trespass, inflicted physical beatings, and brandished a kitchen knife. Following an investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners, and the petitioners subsequently surrendered before the learned Magistrate, and secured bail on 26.12.2023, prompting them to approach this Court under its inherent jurisdiction for setting aside the prosecution as an alleged abuse of the judicial process.
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Learned senior counsel for the petitioners forcefully contends that the continuation of the criminal proceeding is an egregious abuse of the process of the court and is a malicious counterblast engineered solely to exert collateral pressure against the matrimonial proceedings pending in Delhi. It is urged that the allegations are inherently improbable, concocted, and devoid of any contemporaneous medical or injury reports to substantiate the grave penal sections invoked.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692], Mahmood Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [(2023) 15 SCC 488], State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. [(1977) 2 SCC 699] and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599] squarely applies, as omnibus allegations against extended family members in matrimonial disputes must be viewed with judicial circumspection. Most crucially, Petitioner No. 1 raises an unimpeachable plea of alibi, backed by corporate attendance and swipe-card records (Annexure P-4), demonstrating that he was physically present at his office in Delhi on 09.06.2023 and 12.06.2023, rendering his presence at the scene of the crime in Asansol on the morning of Saturday, 10.06.2023, a physical and logistical impossibility.
Per contra, Mr. Dr. Pradip Banerjee, learned counsel representing the State and the private opposite party strongly support the prosecution, submitting that the investigating agency has duly collected material during investigation, leading to the formation of a prima facie view and the submission of a charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is pointed out that the petitioners initially evaded process, requiring notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to be served when their premises were found locked, and that disputed questions of fact, including the veracity of the corporate alibi and the evaluation of the evidentiary value of witness statements, cannot be examined within the summary confines of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and must instead be tested during trial.
Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, the rival contentions give rise to three pivotal questions for determination: -
whether the criminal proceeding at Asansol bears the hallmarks of a mala fide, retaliatory counterblast engineered to counter the matrimonial and domestic violence litigation initiated by the petitioners' daughter in Delhi;
whether the absence of any contemporaneous injury report or medical documentation renders the charge-sheet legally unsustainable or indicative of an abuse of judicial process; and
whether the plea of alibi advanced by Petitioner No. 1, supported by corporate records, warrants the invocation of this Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding at the pre-trial stage.
Delving into the first question regarding mala fides and the counterblast narrative, I have scrutinized the chronological interplay of the litigations and the underlying socio-legal dynamics. The foundational record incontrovertibly establishes that the petitioners’ daughter left her matrimonial home in Bengaluru on 29.10.2022, severely distressed and medically incapacitated during her ongoing battles with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and Bipolar Disorder. In the wake of this separation, she proactively invoked her legal remedies in Delhi, instituting a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA No. 997 of 2023), initiating proceedings under the D.V. Act on 20.03.2023, and subsequently lodging an FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC on 19.08.2023. It was only subsequent to the active progression of these robust legal recourses in Delhi that the opposite party no. 2 set the criminal machinery into motion in West Bengal by filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging a violent trespass and assault said to have occurred on 10.06.2023. The temporal proximity and the mirror-image nature of the Asansol prosecution undoubtedly raise a legitimate and formidable question regarding the retaliatory intent and mala fides of the complainant husband.
To test this facet, the petitioners relied upon the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), specifically paragraph 102, wherein the Apex Court observed by way of illustration:
"102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases:— ... (7) 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."
Similarly, reliance is placed on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), wherein the Supreme Court emphatically held in paragraph 7:
"7.The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a criminal prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
However, while the shadow of a retaliatory counterblast looms large, Bhajan Lal (supra) and Madhavrao Scindia (supra) contemplate quashing only where malice is patent and unanswerable on the face of the record. The legal threshold for quashing a charge-sheet solely on the ground of a counterblast requires caution, because the mere coexistence of matrimonial litigation in another city does not grant blanket immunity against separate, actionable criminal wrongs. In the instant case, the complaint discloses distinct, actionable criminal occurrences that allegedly took place independently of the matrimonial dispute, specifically a house trespass, physical assault, and criminal intimidation inside a dwelling house. The mere background of marital friction or prior legal actions cannot invalidate the prosecution at the threshold, and whether the complaint is an outright fabrication born of vengeance cannot be resolved without assessing the material gathered during the police investigation through a full-fledged trial.
Proceeding to evaluate the second question regarding the structural integrity of the police report and the absence of any contemporaneous injury report or supporting medical evidence, I must examine the legal thresholds governing pre-trial scrutiny. The petitioners contended that the foundational ingredients necessary to attract offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 447, 448, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are conspicuously missing due to the total absence of any injury report, medical prescription, or contemporaneous clinical document to substantiate the dramatic claims of physical assault and knife-wielding threats said to have been perpetrated on 10.06.2023. In support of this, the petitioners invoke Kahkashan Kausar (supra), specifically paragraphs 13 to 18, wherein the Apex Court deprecated the tendency of implicating extended family members through omnibus, vague, and general allegations without specific attribution of overt acts:
"13....this Court has repeatedly observed that family members of the husband should not be roped in civil and criminal cases trivially or lightly unless specific instances with dates and particulars are spelt out against them. It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are frequently reflected in a complaint...
The allegations contained in the complaint petition are general and omnibus in nature. No specific role has been attributed to the appellants. Therefore, in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused persons, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the rigours of trial."
While Kahkashan Kausar (supra) protects family members from vague, omnibus matrimonial taunts hurled without specific overt acts, the present FIR is a specific complaint filed by the husband alleging a localized physical trespass and assault inside a residential dwelling on 10.06.2023, attributing specific physical actions rather than sweeping generalizations. Regarding the evidentiary aspect, the petitioners place heavy reliance on the total absence of any injury report, medical prescription, or clinical document corroborating the allegations of physical assault and brandishing of a knife on 10.06.2023. While the absence of medical evidence is a glaring evidentiary vacuum that will undoubtedly weaken the prosecution during trial, settled jurisprudence dictates that the non-availability of corroborative medical material at the charge-sheet stage cannot, by itself, form the basis for quashing a criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Section 482 is distinct from that of a Trial Court evaluating proof beyond reasonable doubt, since the police, upon investigation, recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed a charge-sheet, creating a rebuttable presumption of sufficient material. Whether the ocular testimony can sustain a conviction without medical backing is a matter for appreciation of evidence during trial, and this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to weigh the probative value of witness statements at the threshold.
Turning finally to the third question, I must evaluate the legal weight of the plea of alibi advanced by Petitioner No. 1, backed by corporate attendance records. The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on unimpeachable corporate attendance documents (Annexure P-4) to assert that Petitioner No. 1, a 74-year-old retired corporate employee, was physically present at his office in Delhi on Friday, 09.06.2023, and Monday, 12.06.2023, with the intervening dates of 10.06.2023 and 11.06.2023 being official weekend holidays, rendering his physical presence at the alleged scene of crime in Asansol on the morning of Saturday, 10.06.2023, a physical impossibility.
Under Indian jurisprudence, alibi is a plea of fact governed by Section 103 of the Evidence Act, requiring strict proof through unimpeachable oral and documentary evidence adduced during the course of a trial. While the petitioners' corporate records present a formidable defence, the foundational hurdle lies in the procedural limitation of a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the BNSS). A High Court, while examining a petition for quashing a charge-sheet, does not function as a trial court or a fact-finding forum empowered to evaluate, verify, or test the authenticity and veracity of private defence documents or attendance logs. Treating a defence document as gospel truth at a pre-trial stage and short-circuiting a criminal prosecution would amount to conducting a prohibited mini-trial, and the truth, authenticity, and legal impact of the corporate alibi must be subjected to cross-examination and formal proof before the trial court.
Synthesizing the factual matrix and the legal principles canvassed across the preceding discussions, this Court is called upon to balance the competing imperatives of protecting individuals from malicious prosecution and preserving the integrity of the criminal trial process. The petitioners have raised substantial contentions regarding the retaliatory counterblast nature of the Asansol proceedings, the absence of contemporaneous medical or injury reports, and a compelling corporate alibi placing Petitioner No. 1 in Delhi on the date of the alleged incident. However, as established by a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the BNSS) is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the uncontroverted allegations fail to disclose a cognizable offense or where the proceeding is patently a nullity on the face of the record. The judicial precedents relied upon by the petitioners contemplate quashing only where the foundational absurdity, civil character, or omnibus roping-in of relatives is self-evident without trial.
In the instant case, the prosecution rests upon specific factual assertions of a physical trespass and altercation inside a residential dwelling, and the police investigation has culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Matters concerning the lack of medical corroboration, the evaluation of defence documents like corporate attendance registers to establish an alibi, and the underlying motives of a retaliatory counterblast are quintessential questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated by a High Court in a summary quashing petition by conducting a mini-trial, but must instead be tested through the rigors of cross-examination and appreciation of evidence before the competent Trial Court.
The extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, but it must be exercised with circumspection and is not an appellate forum to weigh the sufficiency of evidence or test the veracity of a defence of alibi. While the petitioners have raised triable contentions regarding the retaliatory background of the connected criminal proceeding initiated against them, the absence of medical corroboration, and an impressive corporate alibi, these aspects fall squarely within the domain of the Trial Court during the course of a regular trial, and the uncontroverted allegations in the charge-sheet disclose elements of a cognizable offence, precluding this Court from short-circuiting the prosecution at this nascent stage.
Consequently, this Court finds no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the police report or the consequent proceedings that would warrant the interposition of its inherent powers to quash the charge-sheet at this pre-trial stage.
The criminal revision application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
It is expressly clarified that all observations made in this judgment are strictly confined to the disposal of the present revisional application and shall not, in any manner, prejudice the rights or contentions of the parties at the trial stage.
The petitioners are at liberty to raise all their defences at the appropriate stage of framing of charge or discharge before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider and adjudicate the same independently in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Connected application (CRAN 4/2025) is also disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be transmitted down immediately to the courts below for information and necessary compliance.
Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.