Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 629 (CAL)

Parijan Bibi v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-05-04

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE

body2011
JUDGMENT KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. 1. THIS is an application under Section 397/410 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings being G. R. Case No. 2599/2010 arising out of Bashirhat P.S. Case No. 504 dated 22.12.2010 under Section 498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24 Parganas. 2. THE petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant. The petitioner no. 2 is aged about 73 years and petitioner no. 1 is aged about 67 years and both of them are suffering from various old age ailments. The complainant filed a petition of complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bashirhat under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. alleging that she was married with accused no. 1, Abdul Alim Kabiraj about seven years ago. At the time of marriage several articles were gifted. After marriage the complainant came to the house of her husband and started living there. 3. THEREAFTER the complainant conceived. The accused no. 1, that is, her husband used to assault her and, as a result, there was miscarriage. In spite of that the complainant lived with the accused no. 1. Her husband used to come at mid night in a drunken condition and used to assault the complainant. 4. THE complainant came to learn that her husband had illicit relationship with one Parvina Bibi and the complainant opposed her husband. But being instigated by other accused persons, her husband assaulted her by fists and blows and drove her out from the matrimonial home on 4.12.10. Her husband did not return the articles which were gifted to her at the time of marriage. The complainant is now residing in the house of her father. 5. THE complaint was sent to the Police Station under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. and the Basirhat P.S. Case No. 504/201 dated 22.12.10 was started under Section 498A/406/ 323/ 34, Indian Penal Code. 6. THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the complaint there is allegation against the husband only and as regards the other accused persons there is allegation of instigation which is punishable with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the complaint there is allegation against the husband only and as regards the other accused persons there is allegation of instigation which is punishable with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in (2011) I SCC (Cri) 244 [Pashaura Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.]. 7. THE learned Counsel has further referred to and cited the decision reported in (2010) 2 C Cr LR SC 75 [Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs. Monica] wherein it was held in Paragraph 51 as follows: "51. THE allegations relating to the place where the marriage took place has nothing to do with an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Allegations that appellant No.2 kicked the respondent with her leg and told her that her mother to be a liar may make out some other offence but not the one punishable under Section 498A. Similarly her allegations that the appellant No.2 poisoned the ears of her son against the respondent; she gave two used lady suits of her daughter to the complainant and has been given perpetual sermons to the complainant could not be said to be offences punishable under Section 498A. Even threatening that her son may be divorced for the second time could not bring out the offence under Section 498A of the IPC." 8. THE learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that there is allegation against all the accused persons. The learned Counsel has produced the Case Diary. 9. FROM the statements of the witnesses it appears that the accused no. 1 along with other accused persons assaulted the complainant on 4.12.10 and drove her out. 10. THE contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there is allegation against the husband only in the petition of complaint. I have perused the materials appearing on the Case Diary and find that there is allegation of torture against other accused persons also. The charge sheet has been submitted under Section 498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the charge sheet has been submitted I find that the accused petitioners have to face the trial and they are at liberty to raise the points at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. 11. The charge sheet has been submitted under Section 498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the charge sheet has been submitted I find that the accused petitioners have to face the trial and they are at liberty to raise the points at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. 11. THE decisions cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are not coming in the aid of the petitioners at this stage of the proceedings. 12. THE application is, therefore, dismissed. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.