The Calcutta High Court recently quashed a domestic violence complaint lodged by a woman against her in-laws for an alleged attempted strangulation. The court based its decision on the fact that the parties involved never lived together.
A single judge Justice Shampa Dutt took note of the respondent’s statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In that statement, the respondent herself admitted to leaving her marital home on January 20, 2015. However, in her complaint memorandum, she claimed that her in-laws attempted to strangle her on January 22, 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 bench stated.
According to the petitioners, their late son married the respondent in 2006, after which they resided separately in a rented house in Burnpur, Asansol. Therefore, the petitioners claimed that the respondent and their late son never lived with them after their marriage. The petitioners stated that their son died by suicide while residing with the respondent.
The petitioners further argued that the respondent filed a police complaint without any contact with them.
Justice Dutt acknowledged the significant inconsistency between the complainant’s statements in the complaint memorandum and those given under Section 164(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The bench expressed its opinion:
“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 referred to the precedent set in the case of Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab (AIR 2007 SC 124) and emphasized that the crucial factor to consider is whether the allegations, such as those made by the respondent, hold any substance. Since the respondent never resided with the petitioners, it was concluded that her complaint lacked merit. As a result, the complaint was deemed groundless and subsequently dismissed.
