Case Analysis: Sampa Deb (Basu) v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2023) | Nothing can Prevent a Child from Taking Care of their Parents
The Case Analysis: Sampa Deb (Basu) v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2023) highlights the remarkable decision of the Calcutta High Court regarding caring for one's parents as a heartfelt and affectionate gesture.
The Case Analysis: Sampa Deb (Basu) v. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2023) highlights the remarkable decision of the Calcutta High Court regarding caring for one's parents as a heartfelt and affectionate gesture. No external influence can deter a child from undertaking this responsibility, and likewise, no child can be compelled to do so if they are unwilling.
Case Title: Sampa Deb (Basu) v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Citation: CRR 1284 of 2019
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Hearing Concluded on: 14.09.2023
Judgment on: 05.10.2023
Factual Background of the case:
The case, being a revision petition was filed by the petitioner, that is Sampa Deb (Basu) for the following two purposes that are interconnected:
1. Quashing of the proceeding against the said petitioner, that is G.R. Case No. 6024 of 2015 in which Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, has already taken cognizance.
2. Quashing of the impugned Charge Sheet No. 648/16 dated 31.03.2016 under Sections 341/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
The complaint lodged by the petitioner’s husband (Subrata Kumar Deb) was related to her staying at her father’s house for a span of 6 years along with their son. The husband had also alleged that the petitioner (wife) was henceforth restricting him from seeing or meeting their son. He also mentioned that his wife (petitioner) had come to his house, for beating and thereby threatened him. The main issue is in the context of the selling/retaining of the complainant's (husband’s) house and their place of stay.
A few other facts of relevance include:
The petitioner’s mother was aged 70 years and blind (100% from both eyes), lived with her and the petitioner’s son and her father expired in the year 2021. The husband’s parents have expired. The petitioner works as a primary school teacher in a school near the house that she is currently living in. Since the husband’s mother died, he lived with his wife and son at their place.
Issue of the case
Whether wife’s prayer for quashing of the proceedings and chargesheet as continuing and filed against her is valid and should be granted?
Since the petitioner is asking for the quashing of proceedings against her which have been taken into cognizance by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and includes the chargesheet filed against her, this involves the High Court’s inherent power of quashing FIRs as provided under Section 482 of CrPC. The High Courts have been given the power to quash any FIR in case it finds that the complaint is frivolous, or if it is of the opinion that if the investigation is carried forward in this regard it would be an abuse of the court’s process.
Further, the sections under which a complaint has been made against the wife are Sections 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal and while doing so, stated that:
“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 does not want to.”
The court gave a well-reasoned decision whereby it mentioned that it is the duty of the petitioner (wife) to take care of her mother since she is in her old age and also visually impaired. Moreover, the school where she works is also nearby the house where her mother resides. Since the complainant's (husband’s) parents are not alive, and he himself is not employed, he has been continuing to live with her wife and son. It is unreasonable for their husband to expect that the petitioner (wife) should leave her old and blind mother at this stage of her life.
The court thereby quashed the proceedings and chargesheet filed against the petitioner (wife) and allowed the revisional application being CRR 1284 of 2019.