'Never Resided With In-Laws, Question Of Cruelty Doesn't Arise': Calcutta High Court Quashes Woman's Complaint U/S 498A IPC

The Calcutta High Court yesterday quashed a domestic violence complaint filed by a woman against her in-laws for allegedly trying to strangulate her, upon noting that the parties never resided together.A single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that the respondent herself in her Section 164 CrPC statement said she had left her matrimonial home on 20.01.2015, but in her memorandum of complaint she claimed that her in-laws had tried to strangle her to death on 22.01.2015. "Thus, from the materials on record it is clearly evident that the statement of the complainant in her petition of complaint is in total contradiction to her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C…. this is a fit case where the inherent power of the court should be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court/law…. In the Present case there is no substance in the allegations and no material exists to prima facie make out the complicity of the petitioners in a cognizable offence and as such the proceedings in this case is liable to be quashed."The petitioners were booked under Sections 498A/406/325/307/376/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They had approached the High Court for quashing of the complaint which was filed after the death of their elder son, who was the complainant’s husband.According to the Petitioners, their elder son, since deceased, got married to the respondent in 2006 and since then they began residing separately in a rented residence in Burnpur, Asansol. Thus, according to the petitioners, after marriage the respondent/complainant and their elder son had never resided with them. The petitioners said their son died by suicide and at that time he was residing with the respondent. Petitioners further averred that without there being any contact with them, the respondent filed a police complaint. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that there was a marked inconsistency of the complainant’s statements in the memorandum of the complaint and that given under Section 164(3) of the CrPC. The bench opined:“The materials on record including the statement of the complainant under section 164 CrPC clearly show that the opposite party/wife never resided with the petitioners and thus the question of being inflicted with cruelty as defined/laid down under section 498A IPC does not arise. The ingredients required to constitute the said offence is not present in the present case. It is thus seen that the materials in the case diary and the chargesheet there in, do not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the accused/petitioners as alleged and there is no materials for proceeding against the accused/petitioners.”The bench relied on the case of Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab AIR 2007 SC 124 and reiterated that the ultimate test would be whether allegations such as the one made by the respondent have substance. There being no merit to her claim due to have never resided with the petitioners, the respondent’s complaint was found to be baseless and thereby quashed. Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)Case Title: Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr (CRR 261 of 2020)Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 152Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

'Never Resided With In-Laws, Question Of Cruelty Doesn't Arise': Calcutta High Court Quashes Woman's Complaint U/S 498A IPC

Srinjoy Das

Tags