0

Punishment upheld for criminal force against women : High Court Of Calcutta

The present application has been preferred challenging the proceeding relating to Burrabazar Police Station case no. 809 of 2014 dated 22.12.2014 this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising The Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, in the matter Ramesh Chand Singh & Ors. -vs.- The State of West Bengal & Anr [C.R.R. 850 of 2015].

Mr Sekhar Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that before the initiation of the present case another case was registered at the same police station being Burrabazar Police Station Case No. 792/14 dated 19.12.2014 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, He mentioned these because it is the foundation of which was based on the statement of the complainant namely, Santosh Kumar Singh (the present petitioner no.2), The complainant admittedly is Santosh Kumar Singh son of Ramesh Chand Singh. This case was registered based on the statement of Santosh Kumar Singh.

The record of this case also reflected that there are two seizure lists the first seizure list which was prepared is concerning Burrabazar P.S. G.D.E. No. 1754 dated 18.12.2014 in between 23.20 hours at the common passage of 2nd floor of 167, Netaji Subhash Road, Jakarta, PS.- Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 and the following articles were seized:

  1. One fired tinted bullet head.
  2. One empty cartridge having the inscription ‘KF 765’ on its back.

Later, the investigating Agency after the investigation submitted a charge sheet on 22nd January 2015. Meanwhile, we got to know that the complainant also alleges molestation by the present petitioners who have inappropriately touched her private parts and tried to disrobe her, also  It has further alleged that she was thrown at the ground and when her mother-in-law came to her rescue, the petitioners also used physical force upon her mother-in-law and molested her by using criminal force.

Mr Basu learned Senior advocate the complaint was registered by the wife of the accused (in Burrabazar PS [ Case no. 792 dated 19.12.2014], Sandeep Upadhaya) after about 3/4 days of the incident.

 Mr S. Chakraborty, a learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the contentions advanced by Mr Basu and submitted that the allegations in the FIR taken as a whole make out an offence thereby calling upon the accused persons to face trial in a Court of Law.

Court also took into account the contentions advanced by both the parties and also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in:

Vineet Kumar and Ors. –Vs. – State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 and Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Anr. –Vs. – State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2020) 13 SCC 435.

Also, The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the State of Karnataka –Vs. – M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89

The Hon’ble High Court perused the facts and the arguments presented, and thereby, opined that “The case, therefore, warrants invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the continuance of the same is an abuse of the process of law and is bound to cause a miscarriage of justice. Thus, all further proceedings relating to Burrabazar P.S. Case No. 809/14 dated 22.12.2014 under Section 354/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, so far as the present petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. If the petitioners are on bail they must be discharged from their bail bonds. Accordingly, CRR 850 of 2015 is allowed”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat