Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 982 (CAL)

Tarit Sakar v. State Of West Bengal

2018-12-18

JAY SENGUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : JAY SENGUPTA, J. 1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code, the accused/petitioners have prayed for the quashing of a proceeding in GR Case No. 339/2013 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore, Hooghly corresponding to Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 103 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 under Sections 323, 406, 498A of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It appears that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the opposite party no. 2/de facto complainant. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the aged parents of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are his sister and brother-in-law and the petitioner nos. 6 and 7 are their sons. The marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 02.02.2011 and thereafter registered on 03.02.2011. Subsequently, on 02.03.2013 the opposite party no. 2 lodged the instant First Information Report against the petitioners. 3. After the completion of investigation, a charge sheet being C.S. No. 121 dated 31.03.2013 was submitted under Sections 323, 406, 498A of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. On 31.08.2016, an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of a revisional application being CRR No. 2595 of 2016 granting liberty to the petitioners to pray for discharge before the Learned Magistrate. 5. On 31.08.2017, the Learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the petitioners’ prayer for discharge and fix 24.11.2017 for the framing of charge. 6. Mr. D. Roy, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report and the charge sheet. He submitted that the dates of the two GD Entries were not matching with those in the complaint. There was no specific allegation of breaking of teeth in the said GD Entries. He submitted that the witnesses were not dependable. If the husband is the main culprit, his other relations should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. The Learned Advocate relied on the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 on the recent trend of unnecessarily entangling relations of husband in criminal cases. 7. Mr. If the husband is the main culprit, his other relations should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. The Learned Advocate relied on the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667 on the recent trend of unnecessarily entangling relations of husband in criminal cases. 7. Mr. A. Sinha, the Learned Advocate appearing for the State strongly opposed the prayer for quashing. He submitted that the First Information Report mentioned specific dates for the alleged incidents. Specific roles were ascribed to each of the accused in perpetrating the crimes. He contended that the grounds agitated by the petitioners involved disputed questions of fact that can only be decided during trial. 8. Mr. S. Mitra, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, adopted the submissions made on behalf of the State and further submitted that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners as would be evident even from a plain reading of the First Information Report. 9. Heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates for the parties, perused the revisional application including the copies of the First Information Report, the charge sheet and the statements under Section 161 of the Code and the other documents as annexed with the petition. 10. It appears that the Learned Trial Court considered at length the points taken up while moving the discharge application and passed a reasoned order dismissing the same. The order refusing to discharge the accused is not per se illegal at least on the question of application of judicial mind. 11. The allegations levelled by the de facto complainant in this case are that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and other in-laws, inter alia, over demands for dowry. Finally, she was driven out of her matrimonial home. 12. Like in numerous other cases where the husband’s family members are added as accused, here too such an arraignment of relations had occurred. But, as was rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate for the State, specific time frames have been mentioned in the First Information Report about when torture had taken place and even specific overt acts have been attributed to the accused. Before trial, it is not possible to find out the truthfulness of such allegations. 13. But, as was rightly pointed out by the Learned Advocate for the State, specific time frames have been mentioned in the First Information Report about when torture had taken place and even specific overt acts have been attributed to the accused. Before trial, it is not possible to find out the truthfulness of such allegations. 13. In view of the specific roles ascribed to the accused in the commission of alleged offences and the mentioning of the specifics like time frames of occurrences and the like, the decision in Preeti Gupta’s Case is clearly distinguishable on facts. 14. From a reading of the First Information Report and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code, a prima facie case appears to have been made out against the petitioners. 15. The grounds taken up by the petitioners essentially involve disputed questions of fact. These cannot be decided before trial. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to agitate all the points taken up in this application during trial. 17. A copy of the judgment along with the lower Court records may be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 18. Urgent Photostat copies of this judgment may be delivered to the learned Advocates of the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.