Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 295 (CAL)

Prabir Kumar Roy v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-03-02

KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application under section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code") is taken out by Prabir Kumar Roy, Smt. Shibani Roy, Mahua Roy, Smt. Ranu Panja and Sri Anjan Panja praying for quashing of the entire proceedings of Durgapur P. S. Case No. 319 of 2008 arising out M. P. Case No. 221 of 2008 initiated at the instance of Smt. Chaitali Roy on the ground that the dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 is essentially and substantially over family properties and sections 498A and 323 IPC are not attracted in this case. 2. SHIBANI Roy, wife of late Narayan Shankar Roy filed one petition of compliant in the Court of A.C.J.M., Durgapur alleging therein that she and her husband were subjected to torture by the petitioners and that they were driven out from their ancestral house. That petition of complaint was referred to the officer-in-charge, Dugapur P.S., City Centre under section 156(3) of the Code for treating the same as F.I.R and to investigate into the matter. Before the investigation was closed, this revisional application was taken out by the petitioners challenging the entire proceedings. In course of time, investigation into the case is concluded and charge-sheet has also been filed under section 498A/323 IPC against the petitioners. It is reported by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties that the Ld. Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 498A and 323 I.P.C against the petitioners already on the basis of the charge-sheet filed. Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the criminal action was set in motion by none but Subir Kumar Roy, another son of Shibani Roy, the petitioner No. 2 and Shibani Roy is the mother of petitioner No.1, Prabir Kumar Roy. The petitioner No.3, Mahua Roy is the wife of Prabir Roy while the petitioner No.4 is the daughter of Shibani Roy and petitioner No.5 is the husband of petitioner No.4. 3. MR. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that if the face value of the petition of complaint and the material placed altogether with the charge-sheet is taken into consideration, it will appear that no offence under sections 498A and 323 IPC is made out against the present petitioners. 3. MR. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that if the face value of the petition of complaint and the material placed altogether with the charge-sheet is taken into consideration, it will appear that no offence under sections 498A and 323 IPC is made out against the present petitioners. The reason behind the initiation of this criminal action by Smt. Chaitali Roy at the instance of her husband Subir Kumar Roy is to grab the properties left by Narayan Shankar Roy, the husband of Shibani Roy and father of Sri Prabir Kumar Roy, Sri Subir Kumar Roy and Smt. Ranu Panja. After the death of Narayan Shankar Roy, a dispute cropped up between the sons and daughters over the property left by him. Therefore, the dispute is essentially civil in nature and a criminal outfit is given falsely. 4. MR. Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/ wife and MRs. Alam, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party/State fairly concedes the submissions of MR. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and further submit that the dispute between the parties is over the landed property left by Narayan Shankar Roy. The petitioners do not want to share the properties with Subir Kumar Roy. That is why, Subir Kumar Roy through his wife Chaitali Roy has initiated the criminal action. I have perused the case diary produced by Mrs. Alam, learned Advocate for the State in Court today and the materials therein. It appears therein that the dispute between the parties is essentially and substantially over the landed properties left by late Narayan Shankar Roy. Subir Kumar Roy, the husband of the de facto complainant claimed his share in the property. Since the petitioners declined to given him his share therein, Subir initiated this case through his wife. 5. THAT being fact, I do not understand how could the I.O filed a charge- sheet under section 498A of IPC against the petitioners. There is nothing in the case diary also which supports the case of assault. 6. THAT being the fact, I think that continuance of this proceeding would be amounting to the abuse of the process of the Court and flagrant miscarriage of justice. This type of litigation should be nipped in the bud and should not be allowed to be continued. 6. THAT being the fact, I think that continuance of this proceeding would be amounting to the abuse of the process of the Court and flagrant miscarriage of justice. This type of litigation should be nipped in the bud and should not be allowed to be continued. This appears to be a proper case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding in order to stop the abuse of the process of the Court in furtherance of the substantial justice. Accordingly I allow the prayer. Let the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet in M.P. Case No. 221 of 2008 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur be quashed. The petitioners who are made accused in that case be discharged from the bail bonds, if any. 7. THIS criminal revisional application is accordingly disposed of. 8. CRIMINAL section is directed to supply urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, to the parties with usual undertaking.