Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 647 (CAL)

Rakhal Chandra Das v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-08-24

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2009
Judgment :- (1) Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners moved this Court for quashing of the charge under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) Mr. Sekhar Basu, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged for quashing of the impugned order of framing charge on the following grounds:- (a) The allegations made in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the same, at their face value does not constitute the offences for which charge has been framed. (b) The Learned Trial Court framed the charge mechanically. (c) The materials collected by the police during investigation do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of explanation a or b of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. (d) No case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating stridhan articles can said to have been made out, on the face of the statement of the complainant that she could not say with certainty that her stridhan articles, viz., the jeweleries were still at her matrimonial home or not and thus she is not inclined to go with the police for conducting a search there. The allegations on the basis of which the charge has been framed and petitioners have been placed on trial have been made with the mala fide intention to wreak vengeance and to spite the petitioners in the eye of people. On the other hand, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the Case Diary and submitted both the allegations made in the FIR as well as those appearing from the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code clearly makes out the commission of the offences for which charge has been framed and as such no interference with the order of framing charge is called for. Similarly, the Learned Advocate appearing for the defacto complainant vehemently urged for dismissal of the instant criminal revision submitting that there are sufficient materials to justify framing of charge. (3) This is a case where the accuseds have approached this Court for quashing of the charge and High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the Trial Courts order for framing of charge unless there is glaring injustice. (3) This is a case where the accuseds have approached this Court for quashing of the charge and High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the Trial Courts order for framing of charge unless there is glaring injustice. At the stage of framing charge the Court is only required to see whether the evidentiary material collected by the Investigating Agency and proposed to be relied on by the prosecution against the accused during trial has made out a prima facie case or not but it is not permissible for a Court to make a roving and fishing enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. (4) Now having gone through the charge-sheet materials, I am unable to sustain the contention that no case has been made out which justify framing of charge against the petitioners. There has been specific allegation that after she returned to India from London her in laws came to her parents home and started blaming her, saying she was unlucky for their family and further provoked her to end her life since her look and complexions were disliked by them. There is also allegation during her stay at her matrimonial home the accused/husband expressed his dissatisfaction about the quality and quantity of gold ornaments and also asked her to bring Rs. 1.5 lakhs from her parents for their London Trip and as her father was not able to arrange such huge amount of money they started torturing her both mentally and physically. There is further allegation that while she was going to Gaziabad at the place of employment of her husband, her husband and his parents in law took away all her gold ornaments, stridhan on the plea of safety and subsequently when she asked them for return of those ornaments the same was refused. The truth or falsehood of such allegations cannot be gone into without recording of evidence in trial. (5) In view of the aforesaid evidentiary materials on record, I do not find any wrong or illegality in the order of framing charge. The truth or falsehood of such allegations cannot be gone into without recording of evidence in trial. (5) In view of the aforesaid evidentiary materials on record, I do not find any wrong or illegality in the order of framing charge. Merely because the defacto-complainant/wife expressed her inability to tell the police whether her gold ornaments handed over to the alleged accused persons were still lying at her matrimonial home or not that does not bring the prosecution case out of the ambit of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for quashing of the charge and to drop the case against the petitioners before their trial. This criminal revision has no merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.