Jahanvi Agarwal
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners who were accused of conspiring to beat up their daughter-in-law (opposite party no 2) on many occasions.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul noted that the daughter-in-law’s claims were not backed by any medical evidence and that she was receiving treatment for mental illnesses as a result of which, on numerous instances, she had been aggressive towards her husband.
The Court stated that:
“A medical prescription shows that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 was treated for bite on hand and neck caused by her on 16.12.2018. Medical papers of the opposite no. 2 [show that she was] being treated by the department of psychiatry and advised for marital therapy. The complaint was filed on 17.02.2020 at 14.45 hrs. WhatsApp messages till 17th February, 2020, 7.17p.m. show that the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 was apparently normal. It is clear that even after filling the complaint, the complainant continued to WhatsApp the petitioner no. 2. There are no medical papers for the injuries sustained by opposite party no 2. Her prescriptions also advise her regarding marital therapy, anger management, etc. There are no materials on record to show that the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are present against any of the petitioners and permitting such a case to proceed towards trial will be an abuse of the process of law.”
Parents of the husband, Petitioners 1 and 2, claimed that they were permanent residents of Jamshedpur and that, following their son’s marriage, they would seldom visit their son and daughter-in-law’s home in Kolkata because of their “disturbed married life and the abominable behavior of opposite party no. 2 towards them and her husband.”
According to the Petitioners, the husband had experienced “physical cruelty, serious injury to limbs and organs, including threats, verbal abuse, emotional exploitation, and criminal intimidation several times by the opposite party no. 2” after their wedding in 2018. They claimed that all of these incidents had been reported to the neighborhood police station.
The opposing party no. 2 was allegedly taken to a psychiatrist after considerable effort, who later identified her as having Cluster B Personality Disorder, which manifested symptoms including angry outbursts and mood swings, among others.
Petitioners claimed that the opposing party had unlawfully threatened their son and them by conspiring with her parents to say that her husband would continue to experience maltreatment and would be wrongly accused of crimes unless their Rajarhat flat was transferred in her name.
The opposite party no. 2 allegedly left her matrimonial home in 2020 and after that continued to amicably communicate with her husband and Petitioner no. 2 over WhatsApp, informing them around 7 p.m. on February 17, 2020, that she had a fever and would be back a week later.
According to the petitioners, they were subsequently informed that the Opposite party no 2 had filed an FIR under the IPC’s Section 498A against Petitioners 1 and 2, the brother of petitioner no 2 (petitioner no 3), and his daughter (petitioner no 4), on February 17 at around 2:45 p.m.
It was claimed that petitioner number 3 lived in Bankura, that he had never been to opposite party number 2’s marital home or meddled in her married life in any manner, and that petitioner number 4 was his daughter, age 20, who also lived in Bankura.
The petitioners claimed that the FIR was completely false and that it was evident from reading the complaint submitted by the opposing party no. 2 that the conditions necessary to establish an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code had not been satisfied.
In their closing argument, the petitioners claimed that they were being intentionally drawn into the current proceedings since the opposite party no. 2 had another Domestic Violence case that was still pending adjudication and the pair was still going through a divorce.
The opposing party’s lawyer contended that the complainant’s concerns were justified and that there was enough evidence in the record to establish a case prima facie under Section 498A and allow the case to go to trial.
The Court found no value in the proceedings initiated by the opposing party no. 2 and thus dismissed the criminal charges brought against her in-laws after carefully reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by the parties as well as the case diary submitted by the State.
Case Name: Kalyan Panda & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Diary Number: 1853/2020
Bench: Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul