Indrani Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Calcutta High Court 15 Sep 2010 C.R.R. No. 3175 of 2009 (2010) 09 CAL CK 0098
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

C.R.R. No. 3175 of 2009

Hon'ble Bench

Ashim Kumar Roy, J

Advocates

Manjit Singh, Anand Keshari and Pawan Kumar Gupta, for the Appellant;Subhasish Pachhal, for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 34, 497, 498A

Judgement Text

Translate:

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.@mdashThis revisional application is directed against the order dated 29.7.2009 passed in CGR Case No. 474 of 2006 which arose out of Lake Police Station Case No. 55 of 2006 dated 29.03.2006 under Sections 498A/497/34 of Indian Penal Code whereby the learned Magistrate decided to frame charge u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner.

2. The background of the case is that O.P. No. 2 Rita Mukherjee lodged a written complaint against her husband and Petitioner. It is alleged that her husband used to torture her both physically and mentally and had an illicit relation with the Petitioner. The Petitioner taking advantage of the financial assistance rendered by the husband of the de facto complainant to her became close to her husband and started an adulterous life with him. The de facto complainant left her matrimonial home in the year 2004 and started residing at her father''s place. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by O.P. No. 2, Lake P.S. Case No. 55 of 2006 was registered u/s 498A/497 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and the husband of the O.P. No. 2. The police took up the investigation of the case and submitted chargesheet against the Petitioner and the husband of the O.P. No. 2 under Sections 498A/497/34 of IPC.

3. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore for disposal. On 29.08.2009 the Petitioner filed an application praying for her discharge from the case. The said petition was rejected by the learned Court below by the impugned order dated 29.07.2009. This revisional application is directed against the said order.

4. Learned Lawyer of the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner is not the relative of the husband of O.P. No. 2 Rita Mukherjee. The Petitioner is relative of the O.P. No. 2 being the daughter of her sister. Therefore, she cannot be made an accused in a case punishable u/s 498A of IPC. Learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has practically supported the contention of the learned Lawyer of the Petitioner.

5. It is now pertinent to go through the provisions laid down in Section 498A of IPC. Section 498A reads as follows:

Section 498-A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, ''cruelty'' means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

6. Chapter XX-A deals with cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband of a woman. Admittedly, the Petitioner Indrani Sarkar is the relative of Rita Mukherjee the wife of principal accused Sanghamitra Mukherjee being the daughter of her sister. She is not the relative of the husband of Rita Mukherjee the de facto complainant who is subjected to cruelty as alleged. The intention of the legislature is aimed at the husband''s relative but not the relative of the wife. Here the Petitioner has been charge sheeted along with the principal accused husband. The spirit of Section 498A of IPC does not lend support for tagging the Petitioner.

7. Considering these backgrounds if we look back to the impugned order then the only answer comes out that it is against the laws laid down in Section 498A of IPC. The order impugned touching the Petitioner is bad in law. It is set aside.

The revisional application is allowed. No order as to costs.

Later:

Urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, by the parties be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.

From The Blog
Supreme Court’s Liberal Approach: Rape Cases on False Promise of Marriage Must Be Judged with Nuance
Jan
13
2026

Court News

Supreme Court’s Liberal Approach: Rape Cases on False Promise of Marriage Must Be Judged with Nuance
Read More
Chennai Lawyer Arrested in Multi-Crore Accident Insurance Scam: CB-CID Probe Exposes Fraud Network
Jan
13
2026

Court News

Chennai Lawyer Arrested in Multi-Crore Accident Insurance Scam: CB-CID Probe Exposes Fraud Network
Read More