Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1007 (CAL)

Amrita Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

2017-12-22

MUMTAZ KHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) filed by the petitioner/accused person praying for quashing of the charge sheet being no. 204/2011 dated July 31, 2011 under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) in connection with Uttarpara PS case no. 69/2011 dated March 14, 2011 (GR Case No. 249/2011) pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore, District Hooghly on the ground that she is a neither a family member nor relative of the husband and in-laws of the complainant, hence the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable against her. 2. The complainant, Smt. Promita Das, opposite party no. 2 herein, lodged a written complaint before the Inspector-in-Charge, Uttarpara PS against her husband Pranab Das, father-in-law Prasanta Kumar Das and this petitioner alleging that on July 2, 2001 while she had been to her private tuition her neighbour Pranab Das forcibly took her to Dakkhineswar Kali Temple and married her against her will and thereafter took her to his uncle's house at Belanagar. During her stay there she was subjected to cruelty by Pranab Das and was prevented from making any contact with her parents. After 6/7 months she managed to make contact with her family members who then brought her back to her father's house. After some days Pranab Das and his father came to her father's house and told them that he has got a job at Madhya Pradesh and made a proposal to go with him to Madhya Pradesh and lead their conjugal life peacefully. Believing them she went to Madhya Pradesh with Pranab Das but there also she was subjected to cruelty. In the meantime she became pregnant and on her repeated request Pranab Das brought her to her father's house where she delivered a female child. Subsequently, at the intervention of the wellwisher there was a settlement but inspite of that settlement she was subjected to cruelty. In the meantime she came to know that her husband, Pranab Das, had grew intimate relationship with the petitioner and when she confronted with Pranab Das about such relation he assaulted her. Subsequently, at the intervention of the wellwisher there was a settlement but inspite of that settlement she was subjected to cruelty. In the meantime she came to know that her husband, Pranab Das, had grew intimate relationship with the petitioner and when she confronted with Pranab Das about such relation he assaulted her. Now she has restarted her studies at her paternal house but on the way she had been threatened by Pranab Das and the petitioner to cause her injury if she stands in their way. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, Uttarpara PS case no. 69 dated March 14, 2011 was started against Pranab Das, Prasanta Das and Amrita Chakraborty, the petitioner herein under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter on completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against them under Section 498A I.P.C. 4. The challenge in the instant revision is the proceeding against the petitioner Amrita Chakraborty. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner is a neither a family member nor relative of the husband and in-laws of the complainant, hence the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable against her. He also submitted that there is even no such specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint with regard to any cruelty by the petitioner and the only allegation is that husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 had intimate relation with the petitioner. According to the learned advocate of the petitioner the word relative as referred to in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code would not include a person having intimate relationship with the husband nor even to a paramour or concubine. He relied upon the decisions in the matter of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another reported in 2009 (2) Crimes 357 (SC) and Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2010)3 Crimes (SC) 160 in support of his submissions. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the state in all his fairness submitted that there is nothing in the CD to show that this petitioner is a relative of the husband of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and the only allegation against the petitioner appearing in the CD is with regard to the illicit relation of the petitioner with the husband of the complainant. 6. 2 and the only allegation against the petitioner appearing in the CD is with regard to the illicit relation of the petitioner with the husband of the complainant. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and gone through the Case Diary and the documents annexed with the instant criminal revision. 7. It is evident from the complaint that the allegation against this petitioner is that she had intimate relationship with complainant's husband and on the way to her studies she was threatened by the petitioner that she have to face the consequences if she stand in their way. Now the question arises whether the girlfriend would be a relative of husband of a woman in terms of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand." It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha (supra) that by no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a relative. The relevant portion of the said decision is quoted below: "18. By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a relative. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise." 8. By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a relative. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise." 8. Save and except the allegation towards the petitioner in the complaint that she had intimate relationship with the husband of the complainant and she threatened her not to come in their way, there is no such allegation of cruelty by the petitioner upon the complainant. The meaning of word relative peacefully includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. There is no allegation in the complaint that this petitioner subjected complainant to cruelty as provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. From the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the charge-sheet it appears that it is nobody case that petitioner is the relative of the husband of the complainant. She has only been described as a girl friend having illicit relation with the husband of the complainant. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that provisions of section 498A I.P.C. is not attracted against this petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reason I am of the opinion and hold that the instant criminal proceeding against the petitioner is abuse of process of law and as such same is liable to be quashed. 10. In the result instant revision succeeds. 11. The impugned criminal proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner in connection with Uttarpara PS case no. 69/2011 dated March 14, 2011(GR Case No. 249/2011) pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore, District- Hooghly is quashed. 12. Thus the instant criminal revision is, thus, disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.