Calcutta High Court Quashes 'Counterblast' FIR In Neighbourhood Dispute, Says S.354B IPC Not Applicable Against Women Accused
Holding that criminal law cannot be weaponised to settle personal scores in a residential dispute, the Calcutta High Court has quashed an FIR lodged by a woman against her neighbours — a mother and daughter — observing that the case appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier complaint and was riddled with delay, inconsistencies, and legal infirmities.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das found that the allegations stemmed from a trivial disagreement over locking the main gate of a residential building but had been exaggerated into serious charges, including attempt to murder, outraging modesty, and robbery. The Court held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law.
Significantly, the Court also ruled that Section 354B IPC (assault with intent to disrobe), as it stood prior to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, applied only to “any man” and therefore could not be invoked against female accused persons.
Quashing the proceedings, the Court observed: “If the proceeding pending before the learned court is allowed to be continued, it would be gross abuse of the process of law.”
The Court noted several infirmities in the prosecution's case. The complaint was filed nearly four months after the alleged incident, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Magistrate had entertained the application under Section 156(3) CrPC without compliance with the mandatory requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3), as no prior approach to police authorities or supporting documents were disclosed.
The Court further found that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory measure, as the petitioners had earlier lodged a molestation complaint against the complainant's husband; allegations of assault with iron rod, robbery, and attempt to murder were unsupported by medical evidence or injury reports and no recovery of the alleged weapon was made.
It was also noted that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC contained serious inconsistencies and exaggerations and the dispute essentially arose out of a neighbourhood disagreement over locking the building's main gate for security purposes.
On the applicability of Section 354B IPC, the Court clarified that the provision specifically used the term “any man”, and only after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced it with “whoever” was the scope widened. Since the incident predated the new law, the charge could not stand against women accused.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised to prevent malicious prosecutions and abuse of criminal process.
It held that where allegations appear inherently improbable, legally unsustainable, or mala fide, courts are duty-bound to intervene at the threshold.
Background
The petitioners — a mother and daughter residing in a Serampore apartment — had earlier lodged an FIR alleging that certain neighbours, including the complainant's husband, obstructed and harassed them. Shortly thereafter, the complainant filed a counter-complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC accusing the petitioners of assault, theft, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder, and outraging modesty.
Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court seeking quashing.
Finding the prosecution to be exaggerated, delayed, and legally defective, the Court allowed the criminal revision and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
Case: RIYA RAY@ ROY & ANR. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
Case No: CRR 4638 OF 2023