Court Proceeding Ought Not To Be Permitted To Degenerate Into A Weapon Of Harassment Or Prosecution: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court while dealing with an application for quashing the pending proceedings in a matrimonial dispute stated, "The court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution".
The bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, "The complaint appears to be sadly vague as it does not show as to which petitioner has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by the petitioners in the alleged commission of the offence".
The petitioner's case was that the wife of the petitioner, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint on February 02, 2016 contending that she was subjected to domestic violence by her in-laws. In January 2011 she was again assaulted and driven out by her husband, her parents who went to the matrimonial home for settlement and were also abused by the accused. The magistrate passed an order of acquittal against the present petitioners.
After that, the wife again logged the FIR subjected to domestic violence by her in-laws at the New Jalpaiguri Police Station. Hence the petitioner filed an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a quashing of the proceeding arising out of a complaint by the complainant against the petitioners.
Advocate Hillol Saha Poddar appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Advocate Nilay Chakraborty appeared for the state.
The Bench observed that "Supreme Court and High Courts in numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating husband and relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. Upon perusal of the contents of both the FIR it reveals that the allegations are the same, which is omnibus. In fact, such implication through the general omnibus allegation on repeated occasions resulted in misuse of the process of law".
Stating that the sole reason behind the FIR is to harass the petitioner, the bench noted, "There is nothing to show that the opposite party has preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal passed in the earlier proceeding. Accordingly, the veiled object behind the lame prosecution apparently is to harass the petitioners".
Addressing how a proper complaint should be made, the court stated, "It is well settled that in order to lodge a proper complaint mere mention of the section and language of those sections is not sufficient. In all such matters what is required to be brought to the notice of the court, is the particulars of the offence committed by each of the accused persons and the role played by each of them in committing that offence".
Calling the present complaint sadly vague the bench noted, "When the present complaint is taken from that viewpoint the complaint appears to be sadly vague as it does not show as to which petitioner has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by the petitioners in the alleged commission of the offence".
Allowing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner and quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, the court noted, "In view of the above allowing the present proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of court and for the ends of justice it is required that the proceeding is to be quashed because the court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed".
Cause Title: Rupen Dhar & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
