Case title:
Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Date of Order:
08.06.2023
Bench:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Parties:
Petitioner: Dipak Chatterjee & Ors.
Respondent: The State of West Bengal & Anr.
SUBJECT
The petition filed by the petitioners are seeking the quashing of the proceedings in a criminal case pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate. The case was filed by the opposite party No.2, who is the wife of petitioner’s elder son. The petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 498A
- Section 406
- Section 325
- Section 307
- Section 376
- Section 511
- Section 120B
- Section 34
- Section 341
- Section 323
- Section 384
- Section 386
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 156(3)
- Section 207
- Section 164
BRIEF FACTS
- The petitioners are the brother-in-law, mother-in-law, and father-in-law of the opposing party no. 2. The older son of the petitioners, who was married to the second opposing party, had previously been married to another lady but filed for divorce. Then, on November 30, 2006, the eldest son married the second opposing party. Following their marriage, opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners' oldest son started to live apart in a leased home.
- The petitioners contend that the second opposing party never wanted to keep a good relationship with them and prevented the elder son from communicating with them. After being married, the petitioners assert that they stopped communicating with opposite party no. 2 or their kid.
- The petitioners' older son was found hanging in his room on December 7, 2013, and his death was determined to be a suicide. The opposing party No. 2, who was not residing with the petitioners, moved to her paternal house with all of her belongings after her husband passed away.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the complaint made by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioners is valid or just concocted, baseless in order to target them only?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner argued that, the resisted keeping up a good connection with them from the outset. She forbade their son from interacting with them in any way. They had no contact with the opposite party no. 2 or their son after the marriage.
- It was also argued that the opposing party no. 2 did not live with the appellants after the death of her husband. She allegedly began targeting them out, abusing them both emotionally and physically, and demanding money from them by threatening to accuse them of falsely committing crimes.
- The Learned counsel also contend that the accusations are untrue and fabricated because they were not living together and had no communication with opposite party no. 2.
- He further claimed that when the lower court denied their discharge request, it did not consider the contradictions and anomalies in the opposite party no. 2's claims. They contend that the order issued by the lower court lacked language and lacked an appropriate level of judicial prudence.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the respondent argued that, the complainant claims that her husband and in-laws were abusive to her and that she was tortured and sexually harassed by her brother-in-law.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court held that, it becomes clear that the complainant's assertions are contradictory after reviewing the case diary and her statement according to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her Section 164 statement, the complainant claimed that she and her husband had moved out of their marital house and were now living in a leased place. This conflicts with her case, in which she asserted that she had remained in her marital home until she was evicted.
- The court believes that the case does not have the necessary elements to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. The opposite party No.2 statements are unsupported by any concrete evidence or proof, and her accusations are broad and ambiguous. The court also acknowledges the abuse of Section 498A in marriage cases and the need for prudence when accusing family members without sufficient justification.
- Therefore, the court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the proceedings pending before the learned judicial magistrate.
CONCLUSION
The complainant's claims were determined to be contradictory and devoid of supporting evidence, the court concluded. It came to the conclusion that the case did not satisfy the criteria for an offence under Section 498A IPC. As a result, the court approved the petitioner's request and terminated the ongoing legal actions. This ruling emphasizes the value of supported claims and the necessity of caution in divorce conflicts.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
