Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 740 (CAL)

Rajesh Singh v. State

2010-07-02

S.P.TALUKDAR

body2010
JUDGMENT S.P.Talukdar, J 1. The petitioners by filing The instant application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of The charge sheet no. 97/2007 dated 25.5.2007 under Sections 498A/323/307/109 of The Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The backdrop of The present case may be encapsulated in a few sentence as follows :- Opposite Party No.2 namely Abhinanda Singh @ Soma Singh lodged a complaint with The Inspector-in-charge of The Suri Police Station alleging commission of offences by The petitioners punishable under Sections 498A/ 323/307/109 of The Indian Penal Code. In The said complaint, She referred to her marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 15th July, 1998 and alleged that since such marriage, She had been subjected to torture by The petitioner No. 1 as well as by other members of his family being The other petitioners herein. She gave birth to male child who was 6 years and 4 months of age at The time of lodging of The complaint. She alleged that The petitioner No. 1 had clandestine relationship with her elder sister- in- law and whenever She used to raise her voice of protest, She used to be subjected to mental and physical torture. She was sexually abused and such torture intensified since February, 2005. 3. She used to be instigated to commit suicide by The accused/petitioners No. 1,4 and 5. She was under treatment and being unable to bear such torture, She left her matrimonial home along with her son on 7th September, 2005. The matter was reported to The Women's Grievance Cell but there was no response on The part of The petitioner No. 1 to The call From The said Cell. 4. The Police authority on The basis of such complaint started Suri Police Station case No. 163 dated 18.9.2005. After completion of investigation , police authority submitted a charge sheet being No. 144 of 2005 dated 30.9.2005 under sections 498A/323/307/109 of The Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The Police authority on The basis of such complaint started Suri Police Station case No. 163 dated 18.9.2005. After completion of investigation , police authority submitted a charge sheet being No. 144 of 2005 dated 30.9.2005 under sections 498A/323/307/109 of The Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with The continuance of The impugned proceeding of G.R. Case No. 491 of 2005 now pending before The learned Court of The CJM, Birbhum, which arose out of Suri Police Station case No. 163 dated 18.9.2005, as also charge sheet No. 94/2007 dated 25.5.2007, The petitioners approached this Court with The instant application praying for quashing of The proceeding. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for The petitioner submitted that The impugned charge sheet smacks of mala fide. He contended that on perusal of The relevant materials which, of course, include The First Information Report as well as other relevant documents seized by The police in course of The investigation, there could be no case under Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. Similarly, according to him, there could be no offence under Section 307 of The I.P.C. either. Mr. Mukherjee in such circumstances submitted that continuation of The said proceeding into such inherent lacuna would be an abuse of The process of Court. 5. Mr. Mallick, learned Counsel appearing for The defacto-complainant submitted that there can be no justification for any manner of interference at this stage. MRs. Krishna Ghosh appearing for The learned Counsel for The State joined Mr. Mallik while submitting that grievance as ventilated in The instant application does not have any merit. 6. From The copy of The order dated 13th of November, 2006 passed by The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum, It appears that defacto-complainant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with The result of investigation approached The learned Court into The prayer for further investigation. The learned Court, in response to such approach of The defacto-complainant, directed The Superintendent of Police, Birbhum to arrange for further investigation and The medical papers etc. filed on behalf of The defacto-complainant were also directed to be considered. Significantly enough, The said order directing further investigation and consideration of The medical papers was not challenged by The present petitioners. The learned Court, in response to such approach of The defacto-complainant, directed The Superintendent of Police, Birbhum to arrange for further investigation and The medical papers etc. filed on behalf of The defacto-complainant were also directed to be considered. Significantly enough, The said order directing further investigation and consideration of The medical papers was not challenged by The present petitioners. The concerned police authority in compliance with The said direction of The learned Court proceeded with further investigation and came out with materials which prompted It to submit charge sheet under Sections 498A/323/307/109 of The Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. On behalf of The petitioners It was submitted that there could be no such material justifying applicability of either Section 307 of Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 7. After giving due regard to The submission made by The learned counsel for The parties, I find that there is much ado about nothing. 8. It is, perhaps, needless to mention that The lebels given by The investigating authority After completion of investigation are of little significance, if not of no consequence. It is for The learned Court to apply its mind to The facts of a particular case and to ascertain as to what offences could be said to have been constituted by The said facts. While doing so, The learned Court is certainly under no legal obligation to confine itself within The lebels, as given by The police authority. In that event, It would invite serious repercussion. Considering The grievance of The petitioners, as ventilated in The present application in such prospective. I have no hesitation to hold that The entire anxiety is pre-mature and redressal, as sought for, is based on fantastically precise misconception. 9. Thus, I find no reason nor any rational justification for any manner of interference and The present application being CRR No. 2048 of 2008 is disposed of with liberty to The petitioners to agitate all The points as ventilated in The present application before The learned Court at The appropriate stage. 10. It is expected that in that event The learned Court will consider The same in its proper perspective and take necessary action or passed necessary order in accordance with law. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. It is expected that in that event The learned Court will consider The same in its proper perspective and take necessary action or passed necessary order in accordance with law. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Learned Court is, however, directed to proceed with The case under reference as expeditiously as possible. 11. Send a copy of this order, along with L.C.R., if any, to The learned Court at once. Criminal Department is directed to supply xerox copy After due compliance with The procedural formalities, if applied for, on priority basis.