Allegations Inherently Improbable And Vague | Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Woman | FIR Lodged After 7 Years Held Abuse Of Process
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee quashed a criminal proceeding arising from allegations of cheating and criminal negligence, stating that the allegations were inherently improbable, vague, and unsupported by evidence. The Court determined that the proceedings were initiated as a retaliatory measure rather than being based on substantiated facts. Accordingly, the Court directed that the FIR, charge sheet, and associated proceedings be quashed as they amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
In delivering its judgment, the Court recorded that the criminal complaint lacked any prima facie material to proceed against the accused. It held that both limbs of the allegations—one relating to an alleged misappropriation in a property transaction and the other to alleged negligence leading to a child’s death—were unsupported by evidence, delayed by several years, and constituted a misuse of the criminal justice system. The Court concluded that allowing the case to proceed would serve no legitimate purpose and would instead perpetuate injustice.
The criminal revision petition was filed by the accused-petitioner, the ex-wife of the de facto complainant, seeking quashing of the proceedings related to Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 282/2020 dated 16.09.2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1240 of 2020 pending before the ACJM, Searampore, Hooghly.
According to the petitioner, she was married to the de facto complainant on 17.01.2004, and the couple had two children—a female and a male child. The female child passed away on 16.09.2005, and the male child also expired on 19.11.2019. The petitioner submitted that both children were born with severe illnesses, and medical records corroborated that they did not survive due to medical complications.
The petitioner further contended that the marriage ended in a mutual divorce on 13.11.2014, and subsequent to that, she entered into a property transaction unrelated to the de facto complainant. Specifically, on 07.03.2012, the petitioner jointly purchased a flat along with one Mr. Ananta Roy through a registered deed of conveyance. On 19.11.2013, she transferred her 50% share to Ananta Roy via a registered sale deed.
The de facto complainant later filed an FIR alleging that he had paid Rs. 10,00,000 to the petitioner for the purchase of the flat, which he claimed had been misappropriated. The petitioner denied this, stating that the complainant had never paid any amount and failed to produce any documentary evidence supporting the claim. She further asserted that the complaint was filed in collusion with Ananta Roy, who was a witness in the case and against whom the petitioner had previously filed a criminal case under Section 376 IPC on 12.09.2020. The FIR from the de facto complainant followed four days later.
The second allegation in the FIR claimed that the petitioner had received Rs. 3,00,000 from the complainant for their son’s heart surgery but had not used it for the intended purpose, which allegedly resulted in the child’s death. The petitioner disputed this, pointing out that there were no records showing any bank transfers or documentary evidence substantiating the surgery claim. The petitioner submitted hospital records and a death certificate showing that the child had been treated at a leading hospital in Kolkata and died of natural causes.
The charge sheet filed against the petitioner included charges under Sections 420, 406, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the allegations were civil in nature and had been distorted into criminal charges with mala fide intent. She cited the delay in filing the FIR—nearly seven years after the property transaction and six years after the divorce—as evidence of the retaliatory motive behind the case.
In support of her argument, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr (2016) 7 SCR 154, which held that criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes without prima facie evidence should be quashed.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee extensively examined the facts and submissions made by both sides. The Court recorded that "about 6 to 7 years after the alleged occurrence the FIR has been lodged. Such delay in lodging FIR has not been explained anywhere which raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of the allegations made by opposite party no.2 herein/ex-husband against the present petitioner."
The Court further stated that "by making such reckless and vague allegation the opposite party no.2 has tried to rope the petitioner in criminal proceeding." Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar and another, the Court noted:
"If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations."
Regarding the claim of Rs. 10,00,000 paid by the complainant, the Court observed: "Date of purported payment... was never disclosed nor the mode of payment... has been specified anywhere. During investigation no document could be seized... In fact, no such transaction had taken place and the FIR has been lodged with an imaginary story."
On the second allegation concerning the child’s treatment, the Court stated: "It appears that here also no date or time of payment of such amount has been specified anywhere... said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was given by bank transfer but no such document is available... In fact no document is on record... which clearly reveals that the second part of FIR... is a manufactured story."
The Court also acknowledged the existence of prior criminal proceedings filed by the petitioner under Section 376 IPC and noted: "...on 12.09.2020 the petitioner earlier lodged an FIR against... Ananta Roy... and immediately thereafter on 16.09.2020 the instant FIR has been lodged... under the instigation and instruction of said Ananta Roy."
Summarizing its observations, the Court said: "It is well settled principle of law that the criminal court cannot be used as money recovery agency nor the criminal proceedings can be used as a short cut method of any other proceeding for recovery of the money."
It concluded that the FIR and charge sheet failed to disclose any prima facie offence and remarked: "I am satisfied that the allegations does not disclose any offence." The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal, stating when the inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised to quash proceedings.
The Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition CRR 1560 of 2022, stating: "In view of the materials collected so far as discussed above I am of the considered view that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence nor it makes out any case against the petitioner."
Further, the Court observed: "From the facts and circumstances of the case it has been further surfaced that the first part of FIR was lodged by the ex-husband of the petitioner for wrecking vengeance after a period of 6 to7 years and the second part of FIR was lodged on the basis of mere belief and not on the basis of any cogent evidence."
In its concluding order, the Court directed: "CRR 1560 of 2022 thus stands allowed."
"The impugned criminal proceeding being Uttarpara Police station case no. 282/2020 dated 16.09.2020 corresponding to GR Case no. 1240 of 2020 presently pending before ld. ACJM Searampore Hooghly stands quashed."
"In view of the disposal of main application the connected application is also disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prodyut Banerjee, Mr. Suvendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Dhrubaraj Bhowmick, Mr. Ankit Misra, Ms. Seuli Banerjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Imran Ali, Mr. Debjani Sahu
Case Title: Mousumi Das vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 1560 of 2022
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
