The High Court dismissed the revisional application seeking quashing of a charge sheet under Sections 498A, 494, 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that the investigation disclosed a cognizable offence and the impugned order was not liable to be quashed.
The charge sheet is not to be quashed; the petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
15.6.2022 Court No.29 Sl. No. 25 SD
CRR 2114 of 2018
In the matter of: Binoy Chatterjee & Ors.
….petitioners. Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee Ms. Faria Hossain Ms. Baisali Basu
… for the State.
Compliance report filed by the State shows that notice was served upon the defacto complainant, Jhuma Chatterjee (Chakraborty). Let the compliance report be kept with the record.
Petitioners are not represented even on the second call. No accommodation is sought for on behalf of the petitioners.
The petitioners in this case has prayed for quashing of Charge Sheet No.328/18 dated May 5, 2018 arising out of Bishnupur Police Station Case No.94/18 dated February 7, 2018 under Sections 498A/494/406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24-Parganas.
It is stated in the Revisional Application that FIR does not disclose the material for the offence under Sections 498A/494/406 of the Indian Penal Code and there was a previous case of 2008 at the instance of the opposite party no.2 which is pending where similar allegation was made against the husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2.
Ms. Baisali Basu, learned counsel for the State submits that after completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons under Sections 498A/494/406 read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as prima facie, the materials collected during investigation discloses cognizable offence against the present petitioners.
2
In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the present revisional application. Accordingly, CRR 2114 of 2018 is hereby dismissed.
However there will be no order as to costs.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of the charge sheet under Sections 498A, 494, 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act is maintainable given the completeness of the investigation?
Whether the previous pending case at the instance of the opposite party weakens the present charge?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Binoy Chatterjee & Ors.
State
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
