Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta has dismissed a plea seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petition, filed by the accused in-laws, was rejected on the grounds that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, and the trial process should not be curtailed at the present stage.

The case originates from a written complaint lodged on February 22, 2018, which led to the registration of Domjur P.S. Case No. 150/2018. The complainant, the wife of the petitioner’s son, alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty due to demands for dowry. The allegations included demands for money from her father, physical assault by certain family members, and subsequent expulsion from her matrimonial home while she was pregnant. She claimed that repeated instances of harassment took place within her marital household and that the accused persistently pressured her to meet their monetary demands.

The charge sheet was filed following an extensive police investigation, which included statements from multiple witnesses. Charges were framed against the accused persons on January 25, 2019, under Section 498A IPC (husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty), Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (demanding dowry).

The petitioners, who are the in-laws of the complainant, sought to quash the proceedings, asserting that the allegations were false and motivated. They contended that the complainant and her husband engaged in frequent disputes and that she had threatened to implicate them in false molestation charges. The petitioners also argued that they were continuously harassed and subjected to baseless legal action. Further, they alleged that general diaries had been lodged on multiple occasions documenting the complainant’s alleged misconduct.

The court considered the legal framework governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to quash proceedings if it finds that the case is frivolous or constitutes an abuse of legal process. However, it noted that such power should be exercised only in exceptional cases.

The court recorded: “On perusal of the written complaint, it appears that the defacto complainant has made specific allegations against the petitioners regarding alleged demand of dowry, and she further alleged that when she refused to bring the same, each of the accused persons had inflicted physical and mental torture upon her.”

It further noted that the complainant’s allegations were substantiated by multiple witness testimonies and that her husband’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. corroborated the claims. The court observed that the material gathered during the investigation pointed to a prima facie case, making it inappropriate to interfere at this stage.

Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the court reiterated that quashing of proceedings is justified only when the FIR does not constitute an offence, is absurd, or is manifestly malafide. It stated: “At this stage, I am not supposed to look into the correctness of the allegations made in the FIR, when ex facie the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation disclose an offence.”

The court rejected the petitioners' contention that the case was a counterblast to personal disputes, stating that “a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of malafides of the FIR maker.”

The court also considered Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012), which established that cases under Section 498A IPC require a detailed examination of facts. It determined that the allegations made in the complaint required adjudication through trial rather than pre-trial dismissal. It further observed: “The limited scope that the law provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in the course of investigation without rebuttal thereof by the accused and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof, whether any cognizable offence has been disclosed or not.”

The court refused to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that the trial must proceed to its logical conclusion. The ruling underscored that the investigative findings, including the complainant’s statements and witness accounts, necessitated a full trial to determine culpability.

It held: “In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and materials collected so far during investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the criminal proceeding can be quashed invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”

Accordingly, the petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed. The court concluded that since the charge sheet had been filed and charges had been framed, any potential miscarriage of justice could be addressed during trial proceedings.

Case Title: Subhas Adhikary & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: C.R.R. 4741 of 2022
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]