Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised To Settle Scores In Residential Disputes: Calcutta High Court Quashes Counterblast FIR Against Neighbouring Mother And Daughter
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has quashed the criminal proceedings arising from an FIR filed by a woman against her neighbours, a mother and daughter, holding that the case appeared to have been initiated to settle a residential dispute through the criminal process. The Court noted that the allegations arose from a disagreement over locking the main gate of a building, but were projected as offences including assault, attempt to kill, outraging modesty and theft of jewellery and cash. Finding significant delay in setting the law in motion, inconsistencies in the complainant’s versions, and lack of supporting material, the Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process.
The criminal revisional application arose from a dispute between residents of a residential building concerning the locking of the main entrance gate. The petitioners, a mother and daughter residing in one of the flats, were accused by the de facto complainant of assault, criminal intimidation, theft, and use of criminal force with intent to disrobe, allegedly occurring on 18 June 2023 at around 10:30 a.m. The complaint was filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure several months after the alleged incident.
The petitioners contended that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier complaint lodged by them against the husband of the de facto complainant on 22 June 2023, relating to an incident said to have occurred later the same day. It was argued that there was unexplained delay in filing the complaint, non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C., and absence of medical or other material evidence supporting the allegations.
The prosecution relied on the case diary and seizure of clothing, while the de facto complainant asserted that a general diary entry had been made and that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences. The dispute centered on factual allegations arising from the residential disagreement and the legality of the continuation of criminal proceedings.
The Court observed that “the criminal revisional application was filed under Section 482, read with Section 401, praying for quashing” and noted that during its pendency, investigation was allowed to continue with protection against coercive steps. It recorded that “the complaint has been filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C… after four months from the alleged date of incident” and that the genesis of the complaint lay in a dispute over locking the main gate of the residential building.
On procedural compliance, the Court stated that “in the petition of complaint nowhere it is mentioned that before lodging this written complaint, there was any compliance of Section 154(1) or 154(3) Cr.P.C and no document to that extent is also annexed” and further recorded that “the Learned Court while taking cognizance totally failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard.”
With respect to delay, the Court noted that “the written complaint itself disclosed that the date of incident was on June 18, 2023 which means approximately four months prior to lodging of this written complaint” and that the explanation offered did not mention any date or general diary number. It further observed that “the opposite party no. 2 recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C… long after almost 5 months from the date of incident.”
On the nature of allegations, the Court recorded that “no injury report can be found after such severe injury” and found it difficult to accept the allegation of physical assault by an elderly petitioner suffering from ailments. Regarding Section 354B IPC, the Court observed that “in this provision, the term was mentioned as ‘any man’” and held that the provision as applicable at the relevant time did not extend to female accused.
Referring to the principles governing quashing, the Court noted that “the possibility of lodging the complaint maliciously with an ulterior motive cannot be ruled out.” It further recorded that “the nature of allegations levelled apparently are found to be an exaggerated version in respect of a trivial issue of putting lock and key on the main gate.”
The Court directed that “this criminal revision application stands allowed.” and that “the proceeding pending before the learned court of magistrate is hereby quashed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Advocate; Ms. Deblina De, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Advocate; Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury, Advocate; Mr. Dipta Dipak Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Ashok Pandey, Advocate
Case Title: Riya Ray @ Roy & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 4638 of 2023
Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
