WhatsApp Messages By Daughter-In-Law After Lodging FIR Shows Relationship With In-Laws Was Normal: Calcutta High Court Quashes 498A Case
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were accused by their daughter-in-law (“opposite party no 2”) of conspiring to beat her up on several occasions. Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul noted that the daughter-in-law's claims were not supported by any medical evidence and that she was being treated for mental illnesses, due to which on several...
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were accused by their daughter-in-law (“opposite party no 2”) of conspiring to beat her up on several occasions.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul noted that the daughter-in-law's claims were not supported by any medical evidence and that she was being treated for mental illnesses, due to which on several occasions she had been violent towards her husband.
"A medical prescription shows that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 was treated for bite on hand and neck caused by her on 16.12.2018. Medical papers of the opposite no. 2 [show that she was] being treated by the department of psychiatry and advised for marital therapy. The complaint was filed on 17.02.2020 at 14.45 hrs. WhatsApp messages till 17th February, 2020, 7.17p.m. show that the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 was apparently normal. It is clear that even after filling the complaint, the complainant continued to WhatsApp the petitioner no. 2. There are no medical papers for the injuries sustained by opposite party no 2. Her prescriptions also advise her regarding marital therapy, anger management, etc. There are no materials on record to show that the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are present against any of the petitioners and permitting such a case to proceed towards trial will be an abuse of the process of law."
Petitioners 1 and 2, being parents of the husband, argued that they were permanent residents of Jamshedpur and that after their son’s marriage, they would seldom visit the residence of their son and daughter-in-law in Kolkata, due to the “disturbed married life and abominable behaviour of opposite party no 2 towards them and her husband.”
Petitioners stated that after their marriage in 2018, the husband had been subjected to “physical cruelty, serious injury to limbs and organs including threat, verbal abuse, emotional exploitation and criminal intimidation several times by the opposite party no. 2” and that all such incidents had been reported to the local police station.
It was argued that after great efforts, the opposite party no 2 was taken to a psychiatrist, who subsequently diagnosed her with having Cluster B Personality Disorder which exhibited symptoms such as outbursts of anger, mood swings, etc.
Petitioners argued that the opposite party had, in conspiracy with her parents, criminally intimidated their son, and them by declaring that her husband would continue to suffer from cruelty, and may be falsely implicated in criminal cases unless their Rajarhat flat was transferred in her name.
It was submitted that thereafter, the opposite party no 2 left her matrimonial home in 2020, and continued to amicably communicate with the husband and petitioner no 2 over WhatsApp, informing them around 7 pm on the 17th of February 2020, that she had been suffering from fever, and would return a week later.
Petitioners argued, that thereafter they were notified that the opposite party no 2, on the 17th of February, at about 2:45 pm, had registered an FIR against petitioners 1 & 2, brother of petitioner no 2 (“petitioner no 3”) and his daughter (“petitioner no 4”), under inter alia Section 498A of the IPC.
It was submitted that petitioner no 3 was a resident of Bankura and that he had never visited the marital home of the opposite party no 2, or interfered with her marital life in any way, and that petitioner no 4 was his 20-year-old daughter, also residing in Bankura.
Petitioners argued that the FIR was completely false and upon a reading of the complaint made by the opposite party no 2, it would become clear that the ingredients required to make out an offence u/s 498A IPC had not been met.
Petitioners finally submitted that they were being maliciously tied up in the present proceedings since there was another pending adjudication in a Domestic Violence case filed by the opposite party no 2, as well as an ongoing divorce battle between the couple.
Counsel for the opposite party argued that her complaints were genuine, and that sufficient material had been placed on record to make out a prima facie case under Section 498A and to let the matter proceed to trial.
Upon perusing the arguments and evidence of the parties, as well as the case diary produced by the State, the Court found no merit in the proceedings initiated by the opposite party no 2 and accordingly quashed the criminal cases against her in-laws.
Coram: Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 264
Case: Kalyan Panda & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr