ARUN KUMAR MOHANTI Vs. PROBHAT KUMAR CHAKRAVORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the criminal complaint lodged by the respondent, Mr. Probhat Kumar Chakravorty, for an offence under section 406 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It seems that on the private complaint, 12th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata took cognizance and issued summons. The criminal case was registered as Case No. C/14234 of 2004 and the 12th CHN2005 (2) 5/36 Metropolitan Magistrate had ordered the issuance of summons by the order dated 10th January, 2005. The petitioners are the officers of Reserve Bank. Petitioner No. 1 being Deputy General Manager (Personnel), while the petitioner No.2, Assistant General Manager, working in the Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata. While the complainant, Probhat Kumar Chakravorty is also an employee working in the Reserve Bank of India.

(2.) Following factual background is necessary for understanding the controversy. The complainant/respondent herein was married to one Papiya Chakravorty and there was marital discord between the complainant and his wife. The matters went to the High Court and it seems that an order was passed in F.A. No. 43 of 2002, directing the complainant to pay the maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 3150/- from the salary of the complainant. The Reserve Bank of India was directed by this Court to remit this amount in favour of Smt. Papiya Chakravorty. The order of maintenance was passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 4th September, 2001. It seems that there was an appeal against the initial interlocutory order and ultimately the maintenance was fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month. An order came to be passed by the Division Bench on 18th June, 2004, whereby it was clarified that the amount of maintenance should be sent to the wife of the complainant by money order, after deducting the money order commission and that was to be done by the Reserve Bank of India after deducting the said amount from the salary of the complainant, who was working there. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance was sent by money order. Initially the salary of the complainant was attached and the Manager, Public Accounts Department, Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata was directed to deduct Rs.3000/- from the salary of the complainant. As it is pointed out in the order dated 18th June, 2004, it was clarified by the Division Bench that the complainant's salary was not attached, however, the Reserve Bank of India was directed to send the amount of maintenance.

(3.) So far so good, it seems that Papiya Chakravorty got married again and, therefore, wrote a letter dated 28th July, 2004 to the Assistant General Manager, Central Establishment Section, Reserve Bank, that she was married to one Tapas Paul on 23rd July, 2004 and, therefore, she did not require any maintenance further. She, therefore, requested that no money order should be sent to her from the month of July, 2004. In that letter she contended that she was trying to mention the matter before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for disclosing the aforesaid facts. It seems that on that a letter was written also to Probhat Chakravorty, the complainant by the Assistant General Manager, making a reference to the letter of Papiya Chakravorty dated 28th July, 2004. The Assistant General Manager also referred to the letter dated 30th October, 2004 written by the Reserve Bank to Probhat Kumar Chakravorty. In that letter it was advised by the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank to Papiya Paul that she should obtain a modified Court order to enable the Reserve Bank to stop deduction of Rs. 3000/- per month from the salary of Probhat Kr. Chakravorty, the complainant herein. It was, therefore, obvious that the Reserve Bank took every possible step in its power. It seems that the complainant and his Advocate-on-Record have also written letters to the Reserve Bank and, more particularly, to the accused persons for stopping of the deduction of salary. Ultimately, however, the Reserve Bank could not do that and probably continued to make the payment and, therefore, the criminal complaint was filed. It is an admitted position now that after the summons were received by the Reserve Bank, the Reserve Bank or as the case may be the accused persons stopped making payments to Smt. Papiya Paul. In his complaint the case of the complainant is that though the bank was not obliged to send the amount of Rs.3000/- to Papiya Paul and though Papiya Paul herself had written to the bank that she did not need the maintenance, the bank and more particularly the accused persons without paying heed kept on deducting the amount from the salary of the complainant and had, therefore, committed an offence under section 406 and since in spite of the letters by Papiya Paul and the other letters sent by the complainant the accused persons only wrote letter, the accused persons had also entered into conspiracy to commit an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.