The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial case, observing that lodging a second complaint on the self-same cause of action and date of occurrence is not maintainable. The bench, presided over by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, termed the proceedings an “absolute abuse of the process of law” after finding glaring inconsistencies in the allegations.
The Court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the husband and in-laws, thereby quashing the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranaghat.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Asish Bera (husband) and his family members, challenged the proceedings arising out of Dhantala Police Station Case No. 229 of 2022, dated April 17, 2022. The case was registered under Sections 498A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The de-facto complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that she had a 12-year relationship with Petitioner No. 1, which culminated in a marriage performed according to Hindu rites in a temple. She alleged that two months after the wedding, the petitioners subjected her to mental and physical torture.
Specifically, she claimed that on March 18, 2022, the accused persons pulled her hair, banged her head against a wall, and attempted to pour kerosene on her to burn her alive. Based on these allegations, she filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which led to the registration of the FIR at Dhantala Police Station.
However, the Court noted that the complainant had already lodged a prior FIR (Sagar Police Station Case No. 77 of 2022, dated March 20, 2022) regarding the same incident of March 18, 2022, against the same accused persons.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since an FIR had already been registered at Sagar Police Station prior to the filing of the second complaint on the “self-same cause of action and date of occurrence,” the second complaint was not maintainable in the eye of law. They argued that the allegations were omnibus in nature, lacked specificity, and were made with a mala fide intention to harass the husband and his elderly parents and relatives.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 (Wife) argued that the filing of two complaints disclosed “consistent torture” upon the complainant. It was submitted that since the charge-sheet had been filed and materials existed against the petitioners, the proceedings should not be quashed at this stage as it might prejudice the interest of the complainant.
The State prosecution admitted the existence of two complaints (Dhantala P.S. Case No. 229/2022 and Sagar P.S. Case No. 77/2022) against the same petitioners. The State suggested that both cases could be heard by the same Court but opposed the prayer for quashing.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das meticulously examined the case records and case diary. The Court found “glaring inconsistencies” in the complainant’s statements.
1. Inconsistencies in Allegations: The Court observed a discrepancy regarding the allegation of forceful abortion. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant mentioned an abortion in the year 2016 (prior to marriage), whereas the version recorded at the time of filing the charge-sheet described the forceful abortion as occurring during the conjugal life (after the 2021 marriage).
2. Lack of Evidence in Case Diary: Regarding the serious allegation of attempt to murder, the Court noted:
“No iota of material can be found regarding the incident of pouring kerosene oil on her and or banging her head with the wall from the case diary. No previous complaint was also lodged despite such brutal incident.”
3. Suppression of Material Facts: The Court pointed out that the written complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was “absolutely silent” about the previous complaint lodged before the Sagar Police Station. The Court observed that “no satisfactory explanation can be found as to why the de-facto complainant had to lodge two different complaints before different places in respect of self-same incident within a gap of 2 months.”
4. Procedural Non-Compliance: The Court also noted a violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. The complainant claimed she wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur District, but no copy of such letter was annexed with the application under Section 156(3). The Court held:
“It is settled that litigant at his own being cannot invoke the authority of the magistrate under this provision.”
5. Reliance on Precedents: The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, reiterating that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised to prevent injustice. The Court quoted the Apex Court:
“The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At Times, even after the conclusion of trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints…”
The Court also referred to Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., observing that the High Court should quash complaints arising out of matrimonial disputes where all family members have been roped in without specific materials.
Decision
The Court concluded that the nature of the complaint appeared to be “vexatious and frivolous.” Justice Das held that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law, stating:
“Therefore on the cumulative assessment of the entire facts and circumstances this Court do not find any material or sufficient material to allow the proceedings to continue further since it would otherwise be absolute abuse of the process of law.”
Accordingly, the revisional application was allowed, and the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1366 of 2022 were quashed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Asish Bera & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
- Case Number: CRR 476 OF 2023
- Coram: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
