Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal
Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal
Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
Vs.
Heard on : 10.11.2022
Judgment on : 21.11.2022
2
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Midnapore, in G.R. Case No.
3434/2015 arising out of Haldia (Women), Police Station Case No. 13/2015,
where in the court has taken cognizance on submission of charge sheet for
Bengal Judicial Service and at the time of the alleged incident he was posted at
victim of conspiracy where the opposite party no. 2 /Complainant filed this
case against him in which charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance
complaint stating therein that in the year 2014 she had lodged a complaint
against her husband Palash Roy, Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and subsequently filed a divorce suit against her husband. During the
pendency of the cases she came in contact with the Petitioner who took her
Mobile number and used to talk to her. The petitioner told her that he had
separated from his wife and he will marry her and also keep her with him with
3
her son. He further told her to wait till her divorce and assured her that he will
take the responsibility of her and her son. The petitioner kept the complainant
and her son in a rented house at Tamluk and got her son admitted in
Tamralipta Public School and paid the expenses. The petitioner had physical
relation with the complainant several times and also sent money in the account
of the complainant for regular expense. The petitioner also took her to his
petitioner started to avoid her and told her not keep any connection with him
and used filthy language and threatened to kill her and her son.
submits that the Complainant obtained a collusive decree of divorce from her
husband and subsequently in Oct, 2015 registered her earlier marriage with
her husband Palash Roy under the Hindu Marriage Act, by suppressing the
fact of divorce. On 12th December, 2015 the complainant filed this case.
cognizance without applying his Judicial mind. The Learned Magistrate did not
despite the uncertainty of marriage, she cannot claim that she has been raped
on a false promise of marriage and that consensual sex with false promise to
Magistrate did not consider that there is no allegation in the F.I.R stating that
the petitioner’s promise to marry was done in bad faith or with intention to
deceive. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner stopped the
financial help. The complainant being an educated lady was aware that the
bad in law and as such the order under revision is liable to be set aside and
quashed.
by Mr. Kaushik Gupta, Learned Advocate, has placed before the Court that
the complainant has been exploited by petitioner, who holds a responsible post
being a Judicial Officer. The petitioner has denied to marry the complainant
and has threatened to kill her and her son. It is submitted that the petitioner
position, and the complainant being a helpless lady with a minor son seeks the
process of law.
Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Learned Advocate for the State has placed
the case diary before the Court and submits that the investigating officer in
this case has collected sufficient evidence against the petitioner which includes
5
SMS messages sent to the complainant by the petitioner. One of the mobile
phone from which the messages were sent is in the name of Pranab midda,
collected clearly making out a case of cognizance offence and the charge sheet
has been lawfully submitted against the petitioner. The Learned Magistrate on
proper consideration of the materials placed in the case diary took cognizance
161 Cr.P.C., details of places where the complainant and the petitioner had
physical relationship.
complainant put her trust and belief in the petitioner, who held an
put her trust in the petitioner and believing such assurance continued in
“* * * * * *
* * * * * *”
Special Leave petition (CRL.) No. 2953 of 2022, the Court held :
-
“39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be
nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been
lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint
may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent.
However, such possibility would not justify interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.
As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of
the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier
criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the
complaint constitute offence under the Attrocities Act.
Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have
to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine
the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except
in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear
that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any
offence.”
(emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been
yet taken place; and some of the offences attracted in this case are
such the proceedings in this case should not be quashed and this is a fit
case where the inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised.
No order as to costs.
formalities.