[News18] Calcutta HC Quashes Woman's Complaint U/S 498A IPC Says She Never Resided With In-Laws

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed a domestic violence charge brought by a woman against her in-laws under section 498A of IPC on the ground that she never resided with her in-laws.

A single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) remarked that the respondent stated in her Section 164 CrPC statement that she had left her matrimonial house on January 20, 2015, but according to her memorandum of complaint, she alleged that her in-laws attempted to strangle her to death on January 22, 2015.

“From the materials on record, it is clearly evident that the statement of the complainant in her petition of the complaint is in total contradiction to her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C,” Justice Dutt added.

In the present case, the petitioners were charged under sections 498A/406/325/307/376/511/120B/34 of IPC. They came before the High Court to quash the complaint case which had been filed after the death of their elder son, also the complainant's husband.

According to the Petitioners, their elder son, now the deceased got married to the respondent on November 30, 2006, according to Hindu rites and they have been living separately in a rented property in Burnpur, Asansol, since then. According to the petitioners, the respondent/complainant and their elder son never lived with them following their marriage. The petitioners claimed their son committed suicide while living with the respondent.

Petitioners also claimed that the respondent filed a police report despite having no communication with them.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the very beginning, she was opposed to the notion of keeping a good and healthy relationship with the petitioners. She also allowed the elder son of petitioners no 1 and 2 to keep in touch with the petitioners. The petitioners did not have any contact with either the opposite party no. 2 or their son after the marriage between the two.

Further, they also stated that the complainant had unambiguously stated in her statement under Section 164 of CrPC that she used to reside separately with her husband and even after the death of her husband, she was not staying with the petitioners at her matrimonial home owing to the purported objection of the petitioners and in this regard she in contradiction to her statement under Section 164 CrPC alleged in her written complaint that she was residing with the petitioners after her marriage and was subjected to mental and physical torture by them.

Counsel representing the wife stated that she lived with her husband in a joint mess with the petitioners, since her marriage. She was allegedly tortured and her brother-in-law allegedly made sexual advances.

Further, her in-laws also tried to kill her with a threat to give up her right to the family property and she was allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home on January 20, 2015.

After considering the facts, Justice Dutt observed that there was a clear discrepancy between the complainant's allegations in the complaint memorandum and those made under Section 164(3) of the CrPC.

“The materials on record the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 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,” Court added.

The court also relied on some important judgments and noted that the materials in the case diary and the charge sheet there, do not prima facie make out a case of cognizable offence against the petitioners as alleged by the complainant.

Accordingly, the court quashed the complaint case pending before Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol.

Case Title: Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 

Statute: Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code