Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 864 (CAL)

Latika Dutta v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-07-23

J.K.BISWAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE Court: THE petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated July 1, 2010 is alleging that though information was given to the officer in charge of Swarupnagar police station in North 24 Parganas that her elder son and daughter-in-law (the son's wife) have been torturing her regularly, the officer in charge has not taken any step. 2. COUNSEL submits that the petitioner lives with her younger son, and that the petitioner's only daughter lives at her matrimonial home. The case stated in the petition reveals that the petitioner and her husband live in a house built by her husband using a piece of land purchased by her, and that her elder son and daughter-in-law, the fourth and fifth respondents, also live with them. The petitioner wants me to exercise power under art. 226 for making an order commanding the officer in charge of the police station to see that her elder son and daughter-in-law do not torture her. Counsel says that it is only the High Court that is empowered to give the required relief. He is unable to say why the petitioner did not approach the Magistrate if the police decided not to register any FIR even after receipt of information of commission of any offence by the fourth and fifth respondents. 3. IF the petitioner was of the view that the fourth and fifth respondents committed any offence, and that the officer in charge of the police station was wrong in deciding not to register an FIR, then, in my opinion, her remedy, if any, was before the Magistrate under s. 156(3) or s.190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I do not find any reason why the High Court should exercise power under art. 226 to make an order directing the officer in charge of the police station to register an FIR. 4. COUNSEL has candidly said that the petitioner's younger son who is evidently living with the petitioner and her husband is bearing the expenses of this case. It seems to me that the petitioner's younger son has set the petitioner up to fight a family matter with his elder brother and sister-in-law. In my opinion, filing of the petition has amounted to abuse the process of Court. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the High Court under art.226 of the Constitution of India. It seems to me that the petitioner's younger son has set the petitioner up to fight a family matter with his elder brother and sister-in-law. In my opinion, filing of the petition has amounted to abuse the process of Court. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the High Court under art.226 of the Constitution of India. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.