Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Md. Akbar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 27 July, 2009Author:Ashim Kumar RoyBench:Ashim Kumar RoyForm No. J (1)

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                                Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                                        Appellate Side


Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy



                                    C.R.R. No. 2018 of 2009

                                           Md. Akbar
                                             versus
                                The State of West Bengal & Anr.For Petitioner            :   Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee

For State         :           Mr. Rajib Bose

For O.P. No. 2        :       Mr. Sufi Kamal


Heard On : July 21st, 2009.


Judgment On :                 27-07-2009.In this application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the

petitioner who has been charge-sheeted underSection 498Aof the Indian Penal

Code, in connection with C.G.R. No. 1789 of 2003 arising out of Ekbalpore Police

Station Case No. 120 of 2003, moved this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet.2.     Heard Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, the Learned Counsel, appearing for

the petitioner, Mr. Rajib Bose, Learned Counsel, appearing for the State as well
 as Mr. Sufi Kamal, Learned Counsel, appearing for the opposite party no. 2/wife,

the defacto-complainant.3.    Mr. Bhattacharjee vhemently urged before this Court that there is no

allegation in the First Information Report as well as nothing transpires from the

evidentiary materials gathered by the police during investigation that there was

any willful conduct on the part of the accused persons, which is of such nature,

as was likely to drive the defacto-complainant to commit suicide or have caused

her grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. He further submitted there is

also no allegation that the defacto-complainant was harassed on demand of

dowry. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, mere demand of money on account of

some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing any domestic appliances

cannot be deemed to be a demand for dowry and more particularly, when such

demand is made long after the marriage and in the present case, nearly three

years after.In this connection, Mr. Bhattacharjee relies on a decision of the Apex

Court in the case ofAppasaheb & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in

(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 468.On the other hand, Mr. Sufi Kamal, Learned Counsel, appearing on

behalf of the defacto-complainant, strongly repudiated the submissions of Mr.

Bhattacharjee and draws my attention to the allegations made in paragraph 4 of

the First Information Report and submitted that at the time of marriage although

pursuant to the demand made by the accused persons, cash money as well as

other household articles were given to them as dowry but still they were

demanding money for a refrigerator and since such demand could not have been
 fulfilled by the parents of the victim wife, she was tortured both physically and

mentally by the accused persons and was finally driven out from her matrimonial

home. Mr. Sufi Kamal vehemently urged that there are three occasions related to

dowry. One is before marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is

"at any time" after the marriage.    The third occasion is for unending period.

According to Mr. Sufi Kamal, the demand was made actually at the time of

marriage and since such demand could not have been fulfilled at the time of the

marriage, the accused persons continued with such demand even after the

marriage and then drove her out from the matrimonial home for non-fulfillment

of the same.   Mr. Sufi Kamal, in support of his submissions, relied upon the

following decisions;Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2001) 8

SCC 633, Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P., reported in

2009 (3) Supreme Today 691 and Ran Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,

reported in 2008 (1) CLJ (SC) 230.Mr. Rajib Bose, learned Counsel, appearing for the State, produced

the Case Diary and submitted that sufficient materials have been collected

during the investigation and the police was fully justified in submitting charge-

sheet underSection 498Aof the Indian Penal Code.4.    Having heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the

parties and considering their respective submissions and the evidentiary

materials available from the Case Diary, I am satisfied that there is nothing

wrong in the impugned charge-sheet underSection 498Aof the Indian Penal
 Code against the petitioner. In this connection it would be sufficient to refer to

the allegations made in paragraph 4 of the First Information Report and the same

is quoted below;"4. That the accused person no. one, received Rs. 20,000/- in
                    cash, and 8,000/- for other expenses like Bus fair etc., one
                    Gold Chain weighing about One Tolla, Two Gold Ring/14",
                    B.P.L. Colour T.V., one Titan Wrist Watch value Rs. 2500/-,
                    two summer winter suits, and Rs. 12,000/- in cash and always
                    the accused persons demanded money for refrigerator from
                    your petitioner's parents but on refusal they threatened to kill
                    your petitioner and for that your petitioner made complain to
                    the Police authority and finally on 23.5.03 the accused persons
                    started quarrel with your petitioner and driven out taking away
                    all belonging and ornament and fled away to Mohalla Kabir
                    Gunge (Adam Khani) near Chowkhandi More, P.O. Sasharam,
                    District Rohtas (Bihar), and it has already been reported to the
                    P.S. Ekbalpore, vide G.D.E. No. 2442, dt. 26.05.03."5.     The allegations made in the First Information Report as aforesaid

coupled    with    the   evidentiary   materials   collected   by   the   police   during

investigation, it cannot be doubted that a prima facie case for an offence

punishable underSection 498Aof the Indian Penal Code has been clearly made

out against the present petitioner. It is the clear allegation that even after receipt

of cash money as well as other household articles at the time of the marriage, the

accused persons still insisted on their demand for a refrigerator and due to the

failure of the parents of the victim to fulfil their such demand, she was subjected

to torture and then was driven out from her matrimonial home.This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly, stands

dismissed.Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy

of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )