The Calcutta High Court, in a detailed judgment, quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a wife under Sections 498A, 323, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against her husband and his family. The court ruled that the case, filed three years after the wife left her matrimonial home, constituted an abuse of legal processes designed to harass the accused. The judgment emphasized the principle that justice cannot be used as a weapon for undue pressure or harassment in matrimonial disputes.
Background of the Case
The conflict began with the complainant filing an FIR (No. 121/2020) at Sabang Police Station under Sections 498A (cruelty), 323 (causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC against her husband and his family. This FIR led to an ongoing trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Paschim Medinipur.
Nearly three years later, on April 13, 2023, the complainant filed a second FIR (No. 125/2023) based on the same allegations of cruelty and harassment, with minor additional charges under Section 307 (attempt to murder). The petitioners challenged this second FIR, arguing that it was identical to the earlier one and constituted an undue burden on them, particularly as the first case was already under trial.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Sabir Ahmed, Bhaskar Hutait, Dhiman Banerjee, and Ezaz Ahmed, while the State was represented by Advocates Bitasok Banerjee and Arabinda Manna.
Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary legal questions in this case:
1. Legality of Multiple FIRs on the Same Allegations
The petitioners argued that allowing multiple FIRs based on identical allegations amounted to double jeopardy and violated principles of fairness and judicial efficiency. They contended that the second FIR was redundant, given the trial already underway for the same allegations.
2. Abuse of Process of Law
The court examined whether filing a second FIR nearly three years after the complainant had left her matrimonial home was intended to harass the accused and misuse legal remedies.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) drew on precedent set by the Supreme Court in Kapil Agarwal & Ors. vs. Sanjay Sharma & Ors. and emphasized that the legal system must prevent the misuse of judicial processes. The court observed that while it is legally permissible to pursue different legal remedies for the same allegations, such proceedings must not degenerate into tools for harassment.
Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Dutt remarked:
“Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to ensure criminal proceedings do not degenerate into a weapon of harassment.”
The court noted:
– The complainant had failed to provide new facts or material evidence to justify filing a second FIR.
– A delay of nearly three years in initiating fresh criminal proceedings indicated mala fide intent to harass the accused.
Justice Dutt further stated:
“When the court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or are used to bring undue pressure on the accused, such proceedings can be quashed to secure the ends of justice.”
Decision of the Court
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and quashed the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 125/2023 (GR Case No. 1371 of 2023). The decision was based on the following grounds:
1. The allegations in the second FIR were nearly identical to those in the first FIR, rendering the new proceedings unnecessary.
2. The filing of the second FIR after a significant delay, without fresh evidence or cause, constituted an abuse of the legal process.
The court directed the trial in the earlier FIR (No. 121/2020) to continue in accordance with the law.
Representation
– For Petitioners: Advocates Sabir Ahmed, Bhaskar Hutait, Dhiman Banerjee, and Ezaz Ahmed.
– For the State: Advocates Bitasok Banerjee and Arabinda Manna.
