Allowed

Prosenjit Jana and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC14 Dec 2022CRR/171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revisional application challenged the maintenance of a second police case (Rahara P. S. Case No. 13 of 2021) based on allegations of domestic torture. The single-judge bench found the second filing was a ploy to harass petitioners, violated settled law, and was an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The revisional application is allowed and the second FIR (Rahara P. S. Case No. 13 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021) is quashed.

Prosenjit Jana and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

14-12-2022 Subha Item no.21 Ct no.34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

¶3

CRR 171 of 2021 Prosenjit Jana & Ors. -versusThe State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶4

Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Subrata Santra Ms. Richa Barman …..for the petitioners. Mr. Koustava Bagchi Mr. Debayan Ghosh Ms. Priti Kar ….for the O. P. No.2. Mr. S. G. Mukherji, ld. PP, Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu …..for the State.

¶5

The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the proceedings arising out of Rahara P. S. Case No. 13 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 under Sections 498A/323/406/363/ 365/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant namely, Smita Jana Dutta initially filed a letter of complaint with Rahara Police Station which was registered as Rahara P. S. Case No. 185 dated 15.11.2020. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.

¶7

The summary of the allegations in both the cases related to

¶8

¶9

torture being inflicted by the inmates of the matrimonial home along with her husband and a friend of the husband namely, Chandan Ghosh.

¶10

The dates referred to in the first complaint regarding torture/ mis-behaviour are 28.10.2020, 06.11.2020,09.11.2020.

¶11

So far as the second case is concerned being Rahara P. S. Case No. 13 of 2021, admittedly in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has referred in paragraph 9 that the cause of action arose on 28.10.2020,03.11.2020, 09.11.2020 and lastly on 15.12.2020.

¶12

So far as the date namely 15^th December, 2020 is concerned, the complainant alleged that on that date she had been to her matrimonial home for return of her minor sons when the accused persons threatened her of dire consequences and drove her out of the matrimonial home. This additional circumstance is the only reason which has been emphasized by Mr. Bagchi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to oppose the contentions relating to the “test of sameness” as pleaded by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶13

I have considered the allegations, particularly the contents, the dates referred to therein, and the issues relating to torture and the mis-behaviour complained of.

¶14

On an assessment of the same, I am of the opinion that the manner in which a hand written paragraph has been inserted in the application under Sections 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a ploy to initiate a second proceeding was to harass the present

¶15

¶16

petitioners.

¶17

Having regard to the contents of the allegations in both the cases being Rahara P. S. Case No. 185 of 2020 dated 15.11.2020 and Rahara P. S. Case No. 13 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021, I am of the opinion that the second FIR being Rahara P. S. Case No. 13 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 do fall within the settled principle of law as has been pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Bhai –vs-

¶18

State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254.

¶19

Having regard to the same, further continuance of the Rahara Police Station Case No. 13 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 is an abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed.

¶20

Accordingly, all further proceedings of Rahara P. S. 13 of 2021 dated 06.01.2021 is hereby quashed. However, the police authorities are directed that in case any material which has been collected in course of the said investigation is so required for the purposes of Rahara P. S. Case No. 185 of 2020 dated 15.11.2020, the said documents, materials can be transmitted for invoking the same as part and parcel of the said case

¶21

Accordingly, the present revisional application is allowed.

¶22

As such, the present revisional application being CRR 171 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶23

Pending applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. All concerned parties are to act in terms of a copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶24

[Tirthankar Ghosh, J]

¶25

Prosenjit Jana and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prosenjit Jana and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Sk Anesh Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Supriya Paul Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Senbo Engg. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Jay Prakash Soni Vs State of West Bengal

Atanu Pramanik and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.