Family Property Dispute Given Criminal Colour: Calcutta High Court Quashes Defamation, Intimidation Case Against Cousin
Observing that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic in what is essentially a family property dispute, the Calcutta High Court has quashed defamation, insult and intimidation proceedings initiated against a private company executive, holding that the complaint did not disclose the basic ingredients of offences under the IPC.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the allegations were vague, lacked particulars of date, time or specific words, and failed to establish any criminal intent.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Avijit Singha Roy seeking quashing of a charge sheet filed under Sections 500 (defamation), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (insult to modesty of a woman) IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly. The petitioner, an employee of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, contended that the case was a “counter blast” to multiple civil disputes and suits pending between the families over ancestral property.
According to the complainant, who is the petitioner's cousin and a government officer, the petitioner had continuously abused, threatened and stalked her, causing psychological trauma during her pregnancy and tarnishing her reputation. She alleged verbal insults, harassment and conduct affecting her dignity. On this basis, an FIR was registered and charge sheet submitted after investigation.
The petitioner argued that the complaint was purely civil in flavour and intended to harass him amid pending partition and money suits. It was submitted that the FIR did not specify any particular incident, date, time, place or even the exact words allegedly spoken. He relied on Supreme Court precedents to contend that bald and omnibus allegations cannot constitute offences like defamation or criminal intimidation.
Examining the complaint and case diary, the High Court found that the allegations were general and sweeping, without any concrete details of what defamatory or insulting statements were made. The statements of witnesses also failed to disclose specific words or conduct amounting to defamation or insult to modesty. The Court observed that to attract Sections 499 and 509 IPC, there must be clear imputations or gestures intended to harm reputation or insult modesty, which were absent in the present case.
The Court further noted the long-standing property dispute and multiple civil proceedings between the parties and held that, although pendency of a civil suit does not automatically bar criminal action, a purely civil dispute cannot be cloaked with criminal colour. Relying on principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, the High Court can exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.
Finding no prima facie material to sustain the charges, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceeding pending before the Magistrate.
Case: AVIJIT SINGHA ROY VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Case No: CRR 1577 OF 2023