The Calcutta High Court recently quashed a case of cheating lodged against a woman by her husband. The court held that merely for the wife to have left the matrimonial house wearing her regular ornaments/accessories could not be a basis to file a criminal case against her.
The bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the jewellery which was alleged to have been taken away by the wife were the ornaments/accessories worn on a regular basis by a traditional Bengali married woman who chooses to wear them.
The other things that the woman had taken away with her were her cellphones. Taking note of this, the HC held that these could not be the basis of a criminal case of cheating against her in light of the fact that she had left the matrimonial house after 29 years of marriage.
The court was dealing with a revision petition to quash a case lodged against the woman under sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The petitioner’s case was that due to tremendous torture since her marriage in 1999, it became impossible for her to tolerate any further, and ultimately, in 2019, she filed a case under sections 498A/323/324/506 of IPC against her husband and his family. She also left her matrimonial house after that.
However, as a counterblast, her husband filed a case for cheating against her along with many other cases, the petitioner alleged.
Not only that, the husband, being a practising advocate himself at the local court, also made it impossible for her to engage a counsel to represent her, the petitioner claimed.
Consequently, the petitioner had to appear in person before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the cheating case.
The magistrate issued a search warrant for the search/recovery of personal articles from the premises of the petitioner.
The petitioner moved the high court alleging that the magistrate’s order suffered from non-application of mind.
The HC noted that the husband had claimed that when the petitioner had left her matrimonial house, she had taken with herself all the marriage ornament and two mobile phones. The court observed that all the claimed items were ornaments that are worn by a married woman as a sign of marriage.
Therefore, while quashing the cheating case against the woman, the court informed her that in other cases, she could avail of legal aid including a counsel on approaching the respective legal services authority to conduct the proceedings on her behalf.
Comments
0 comment