CASE REVIEW ON SAMP DEB(BASU) V STATE OF WEST BENGAL , 2

Qurom – 

Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Name of the Parties : 

Petitioner : Sampa Deb Basu

Respondent : State of West Bengal

Section 341 deals with punishment for wrongful restraint

Section 323  deals with punishment of voluntary causing hurt

Section 506 – Punishment for criminal intimidation

The case of Sampa Deb Basu v State of West Bengal is a revision petition applied by the Sampa Deb, the  wife of complainant Subrata Kumar Deb with respect to her stay with her parents from  last 6 years. The wife demands quashing of  earlier proceedings against the wife by the husband on grounds of assault and threats to him. The husband here is unemployed and the wife is working as a  teacher in a nearby school from her mother’s place.  Both the parties have faced the loss of parents as husband’s parents passed in 2009 and wife’s father passed in 2021.

Wife stays currently with her 70 year mother who’s completely blind . The petitioner works as a primary school teacher and takes care of her mother. The major issue here of the parties is with respect to the place of residence and cohabitation between the parties.

The parties got married in the year 2001. They had a child/son in 2009. The husband’s mother also expired in 2009 and the wife’s father expired in 2021 at the age of 90 years. The wife’s mother aged 70 years in 100% blind in both eyes. The petitioner works as a primary school teacher near her parent’s house. Since the death of the mother , husband stays with the wife’s family and the dispute as it appears is in respect of retaining the complainant’s house.  

The petitioner demanded quashing the proceedings  against her under sections 341,323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860  which was ordered   by the Chief Judicial Magistrate , Bariupur , South 24 parganas as cognizance. Section 341 deals about punishment for wrongful restraints , Section 323 deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and Section 506 deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. In this case, the husband claims that the wife threated him and caused hurt and assaulted him.

In this revision petition the wife demands quashing of  proceeding against the wife i.e. petitioner that is in G.R case no. 6024 where the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Baruipur, South 24 Parganas had taken cognizance  and also quashing of impugned charge sheet no 648/16 under the same sections against the petitioner. 

Issues of the case

The issue arising in this case is whether the prayer of petitioner for quashing of the proceedings and the chargesheet as continuing and filed against her by her husband is valid ? Should it be granted?

Arguments from both the parties

The Petitioner’s mother was aged of about 70 years and blind (100% from both eyes) , lived with her to take care. The petitioner demanded quash of order  with respect to taking care of her mother. The major issue between the parties was with respect to residence and cohabitation of the parties. The wife claimed that she had the responsibility of her old age mother and so can’t leave her like this and on this ground demanded  

The complaint was lodged by the husband with respect to the staying of wife at her maternal home. The husband alleged that the wife restricted him from meeting their child. He also mentioned that the wife came to his house for beating and threatening him. The main issue of context of the selling or retaining of the complaint’s property. 

Judgement

The High Court of Calcutta , a single-bench judge consisting of Shampna Dutt (Paul) observed the main dispute appearing to be related as a sale or disposal of property of the husband. The Court stated that the information collected  in the case diary lacks a lot of substantial evidence for the offences committed by the petitioner and continuing the legal proceedings would abuse the women .In this aspect, the Court quashes the orders against the wife and also acknowledged the claims of the wife with respect to the her old age mother.

In the opinion of the Court, it is the duty of the Child to take care of the child properly and also stated that “taking care of one’s parents is an emotional and a loving act, which cannot be forced and therefore , the wife cannot be forced to leave her mother and reside with the husband.”

The Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceedings against the impugned legal proceedings including the charge sheet containing the sections of 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate . The Court directed that a copy of this judgement is to be sent to the trial court for the necessary compliance. The advocates who appeared in this case comprised of Mr Pradip Kumar Mandal , counsel for the petitioner and Mr Saswata Gopal Mukherjee , PP and Ms Rita Datta , counsel for the respondent.

Case review in your own words

The case originated with respect to the matrimonial issues between the husband and the wife. The complaint was first filed against the wife on the grounds of criminal intimidation, voluntary causing hurt and punishment of wrongful restraint. The petitioner demanded the quashing of order on the sections 341, 323 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code,1860. The Calcutta High Court in its judgement quashed the    SUBMITTED TO

SHAURYA SINHA charges against the wife on the ground that the investigation procedure and the other aspects were not appropriate and also there was loss of evidentiary value in the substantial evidence in the charge sheet. The Court also gave an observation that “Nothing can prevent a Child from Taking Care of their Parents also Taking care of one’s parents is an emotional and loving act. No Force in the World can stop a child from doing it and no child can be forced to do so, if he or she doesn’t want to.

”SUBMITTED by:-

SHAURYA SINHA