Skip to content


Sm. Shibarani Debi and anr. Vs. Sm. Ratnamala Debi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 703 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1958Cal130,61CWN723
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Section 423
AppellantSm. Shibarani Debi and anr.
RespondentSm. Ratnamala Debi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateBhabesh Chandra Mitter, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNalin Chandra Banerjee, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....had ceased to be dasarathi's widow and that in the conveyances concerned she had made certain false statements which made out a case under section 423, penal code. it is to quash the consequent proceedings that the present rule was issued.3. mr. bhabesh chandra mitter for the petitioners has contended that neither the petition of complaint nor the initial statement of the-opposite party makes out any case under section 423. mr. mitter has contended further that even if the petitioner married a second time, which is denied, she could not be said to have made any false statement. mr. nalin banerjee on behalf of the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that by reason of the alleged second marriage of the petitioner, she ceased to be the widow of dasarati banerjee and that.....
Judgment:

Mitter, J.

1. This is an application for quashing certain proceedings under Sections 423 and 423/109, Penal Code, now pending against the petitioners in the Court of Shri P.C. Chakrabarty, Magistrate, 2nd Class, Alipore. A revisional application to the learned Sessions Judge for making a Reference to this Court recommending that the proceedings be quashed was rejected,

2. The petitioner Sm. Shibarani Debi claims to be the widow of one Dasarathi Banerjee, who predeceased his father. In the ordinary course, the estate belonging to Dasarathi's father would devolve upon Dasarathi's widow. It is common case that the petitioner executed two documents, in each of which she described herself as the widow of Dasarathi Banerjee. These documents purported to transfer, for legal necessity, certain properties left by Dasarathi's father. The opposite party's case was that the petitioner Shibarani having married a second time, had ceased to be Dasarathi's widow and that in the conveyances concerned she had made certain false statements which made out a case under Section 423, Penal Code. It is to quash the consequent proceedings that the present Rule was issued.

3. Mr. Bhabesh Chandra Mitter for the petitioners has contended that neither the petition of complaint nor the initial statement of the-opposite party makes out any case under Section 423. Mr. Mitter has contended further that even if the petitioner married a second time, which is denied, she could not be said to have made any false statement. Mr. Nalin Banerjee on behalf of the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that by reason of the alleged second marriage of the petitioner, she ceased to be the widow of Dasarati Banerjee and that the complaint was one under the second part of Section 423. According to Mr. Banerjee, the documents concerned not only contain a false description of the executant but also false statement relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit the documents are really intended to operate. Mr. Banerjee's argument is that the statement to each conveyance that the property is being conveyed for the benefit of the purchaser is false, inasmuch as by the conveyance it is the petitioner who is to benefit, because she is to receive the consideration for the conveyance. It is not disputed that by the conveyances the properties concerned are to be transferred to the purchasers. That being so, the use or benefit to accrue by such transfer will be that of the purchaser. As the section says, the false statement must relate to the person or persons for whose use or benefit the transfer is really intended to operate. The 'person or persons' must mean the purchaser or purchasers, as the case may be. True, the executant receives the consideration for the transfer and in that sense she receives a benefit, but then she is the vendor and the transfer cannot be said to be really intended to operate for her use or benefit. In our view, the facts disclosed in the case make out a dispute of a civil nature and not an offence under Section 423, Penal Code. There is no doubt that the real intention of the complainant is to use the criminal court for an ulterior object.

4. We would, in the circumstances, quash the proceedings and make the rule absolute.

Guha Ray J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //