MANJU RANI GHARAMI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present hearing arises out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby the petitioner Manju Rani Gharami has prayed for quashing of proceedings in G.R. Case No. 2201 of 2002 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barackpore under Sections 363/365/366/368/380/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Shortly put the background leading to the filing of the present petition is as follows :

(3.) The only point for consideration here is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the chargesheet in question should be quashed or not ? I have heard the learned Advocate for both sides. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the petitioner left her matrimonial home with the child on her own volition and the very element of force and deceitful means are missing in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the condition precedent of the offence under Sections 368 is kidnapping or abduction and if the same is missing there cannot be any offence under Section 368 I.P.C. Regarding the allegation of theft of some gold ornaments, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the mere removal of the gold ornaments cannot constitute an offence. There must be a dishonest intention for the purpose of removal of these articles. On the other hand, if the article is removed under bona fide claim it is not theft. The learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 husband has submitted that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 368 I.P.C. in respect of the child. It is further submitted that strong suspicion can be the basis of a charge in respect of aft offence punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. In support of such contention, the learned Advocate for the O.P. has placed his reliance on the case of Supdt. & Ramembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., 1979 CrLJ 1390. It is further submitted that the instant case is not a case where the chargesheet should be quashed. In this respect, the learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 has mainly relied on the allegation regarding theft of some gold ornaments from the house of O.P. No. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the State of W.B. (O.P. No. 1) has supported the contention of the petitioner and has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the chargesheet has failed to disclose any offence against the petitioner.