Bandana Sarkar And Others v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) CRR 4440 OF 2022 BANDANA SARKAR & ORS.
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Sunil Gupta, Mr. Shraman Sankar, Mr. Tasnim Ahmed, Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed.
For the State For the State Legal Services Authority on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 :
:
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Saryati Datta.
Ms. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu).
Hearing concluded on : 28.11.2024 Judgment on : 13.12.2024
Page : 2 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :
1.
The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings being GR case no.270 of 2022 arising out of Maniktala PS case no.31 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022 under Sections 341/323/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah.
2.
The written complaint in the present case dated 02.02.2022 wherein the de facto complainant /opposite party no.2 has again alleged being beaten by her husband and the petitioners and other accused persons who dragged her out of the room and assaulted her and that her husband never paid respect to her for the last 16 years of her marriage and she has been regularly tortured by the accused persons.
3.
It appears from the materials on record that a lawyer's notice dated 09.12.2021 for eviction from the premises belonging to the petitioner no.1 was served upon the de facto complainant. The present complaint has been filed on 02.02.2022 after the said notice of eviction. It clearly appears that the said complaint is a fall out of a notice of eviction which is served upon the de facto complainant and the husband for regular torture upon the petitioner no.1.
Page : 3 4.
On perusal of the materials in the case diary, it appears that there is no injury report.
5.
In Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993, Criminal Appeal No(s). ......... of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022), the Supreme Court held:- "15. This Court has an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC 369 decided on 31st March, 2017. It may be useful to refer to paras 22, 23 and 41 of the above judgment where the following was stated:
"22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court.
Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
23.
This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7
Page : 4 of the judgment, the following has been stated :
„7. In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.
The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.
41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to
Page : 5 indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which is to the following effect :
„102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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.‟ Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings."
16. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335 as under :
"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
Page : 6 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases 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 wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) 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 under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
Page : 7 prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) 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.
(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."
17. The principles culled out by this Court have consistently been followed in the recent judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315."
6.
The present case falls under category 1, 3 and 7 of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal (Supra).
7.
In N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. vs K. Lalitha, in criminal appeal no. 1759 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6039 of 2022), decided on October 10, 2022, the Supreme Court held:- ".........Section of the IPC talks about punishment for wrongful restraint. Section 341 reads thus:
Page : 8 "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees or with both."
The complaint also fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In order to attract application of Section 341 which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant.
The averments made in the complaint according to us are not sufficient to even constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In the overall view of the case, we are convinced that no case is made out against the appellants herein as alleged by the complainant........"
8.
The allegations in the written complaint are general in nature and do not make out even a prima facie case against the petitioners in respect of the offences alleged. 9.
There are no materials on record to show that the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are present against any of the petitioners and permitting such a case to proceed towards trial will be an abuse of the process of law and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.
10.
CRR 4440 of 2022 is allowed.
11.
The proceedings being GR case no.270 of 2022 arising out of Maniktala PS case no.31 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022 under
Page : 9 Sections 341/323/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners namely Bandana Sarkar, Patralekha Ghosh and Arunabha Ghosh.
12.
All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
15.
Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]