The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against five members of a matrimonial family, holding that the materials in the First Information Report (FIR) and charge sheet did not disclose the basic ingredients required for the alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Background
The proceedings arose from matrimonial allegations involving the petitioners, who included the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant. The prosecution involved Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioners argued that the original written complaint dated January 21, 2020, did not contain allegations attracting the SC/ST Act. According to the judgment, a subsequent complaint was submitted about nine days later seeking to invoke provisions of the special legislation. The petitioners maintained that the allegations were general and that no specific material established their involvement.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) examined the allegations and the material placed before the Court. The Court noted that there was no material in the case diary showing that the complainant had allegedly been abused in public.
“There is no material in the case diary to show that the de facto complainant was allegedly abused in public.”
The Court also referred to Supreme Court decisions explaining that allegations under the SC/ST Act must satisfy its essential statutory requirements. It particularly considered the requirement concerning an alleged insult or intimidation occurring in a place within public view, as explained in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.
The High Court further found that the record contained no material or statements sufficient to establish the alleged offences either in the FIR or in the charge sheet.
The Calcutta High Court quashed the proceedings in both special cases, including the orders passed in connection with them, insofar as they concerned Anita Mahajan, Sadhan Chandra Mahajan, Bihan Mahajan, Papri Debnath and Piyali Bhowmick.
The Court consequently allowed CRR 529 of 2021 and CRR 531 of 2021, disposed of the connected applications and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.
