The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, holding that the allegations of matrimonial dispute and alleged misappropriation of dowry lacked prima facie evidence and were an abuse of process.
Quashing of proceedings in G.R. No. 1300 of 2018 arising out of Bizpore Police Station Case No. 126 of 2018.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1014 of 2019
Kalyan Kumar Das @ Kalyan Das
Vs
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prantick Ghosh, Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar, Mr. P. Bhattacharyya. For the State : Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Avik Ghatak. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None. Heard on : 17.04.2023 Judgment on : 10.05.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
3
that if they give an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- and a golden chain then only he will marry Tanuja. When they expressed their inability to pay the same, they were thrown out from his house and told that he would not marry and would also not refund the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
5. Mr. Prantick Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
entire allegations leveled against the Petitioner in the Written Complaint, Charge Sheet and its supportive documents are totally false, frivolous, baseless, concocted and an afterthought and made with an ulterior motive and malafide intention of harassing him unnecessarily and thereby tarnishing his social image, prestige and reputation for which the same is denied and disputed in its entirety and this was totally overlooked by the Investigating Authority while submitting Charge Sheet against the
4
Petitioner under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also by the Learned Trial Court while taking cognizance, which is ipso facto bad both in law and in fact and hence the instant proceeding is liable to be quashed, as also that the impugned proceeding is a gross abuse of the process of Court.
5
(Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022), the Supreme Court held:-
“ 15. This Court has an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , (2017) 13 SCC 369 decided on 31st March, 2017. It may be useful to refer to paras 22, 23 and 41 of the above judgment where the following was stated:
“22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court. Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated :
‘7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
6
The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.’
41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which is to the following effect :
‘102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.’
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the
7
judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.”
16. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335 as under:
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
8
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
17. The principles culled out by this Court have consistently been followed in the recent judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 .”
9
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner amount to an abuse of the process of court and are manifestly attended with mala fides warranting quashing.
Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute a prima facie offence under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.Followed¶29
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993
Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and AnotherFollowed¶30
Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC 369 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. L. MuniswamyFollowed¶33
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶36
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and OthersFollowed¶52
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalyan Kumar Das @ Kalyan Das
State of West Bengal
Tanuja Bar
Shampa Dutt (Paul)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
