IMPORTANT POINT
While exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P.C, Court is under an obligation to hold an enquiry with respect to materials produced to the extent, it is necessary to find it out whether a prima facie case is made out or not.

JUDGEMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J.—This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. Case No.501 of 2018, arising out of Ghola Police Station Case No.50/18 dated 01.02.2018 under Section 498A/323/326/325/354B/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.

2. The contention raised by the revisionists in this case was that a property dispute was attempted to be colourised by initiating a criminal proceeding with an aim to harass the revisionists/petitioners capitalising such property dispute. According to revisionists, pending proceeding was purposive, oppressive frivolous and mala fide one.

3. Learned advocate for the private opposite party No.2 (de facto complainant) submitted that when chargesheet had been submitted in this case collecting sufficient materials against the revisionists, the instant proceedings should not be allowed to be quashed without holding a trial.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Panda representing State of West Bengal producing the copy of the materials already collected in the CD submitted that sufficient materials had been there to reveal a prima facie case against the accused persons, and thus contended that there could not be any quashment of the instant proceeding, as sought for by revisionists, ignoring the prima facie materials being collected against them.

5. Admittedly Chandana Das (de facto complainant) being wife of Pradip Das submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C, which was forwarded to police for investigation by an order of the Court. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the revisionist/accused persons under Section 498A/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. In the FIR materials were there to reveal that de facto complainant had been put to suffer cruelty, harassment and oppression in her in law’s house for the non-satisfaction of the items presented at the time of marriage of the de facto complainant by her in laws members. There was further demand of money which could not be satisfied for the poverty in the parental house of the de facto complainant. More than once victim was subjected to physical assault, insult, humilitation and ultimately driven out from her matrimonial home subsequent to 19th January, 2018. The de facto complainant delivered three (3) children after her marriage, which was solemnised on 4th December, 1997.

7. Admitted position is that the petitioner No.1 is the younger brother of the husband of the de facto complainant, while petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of de facto complainant being wife of petitioner No.1.

8. After demise of parents-in-law of petitioners and the de facto complainant as well, trouble in the family cropped up over their property matters.

9. Learned advocate for the revisionists submitted with much emphasis that when petitioner No.2 was given marriage with petitioner No.1 on 03.03.01 i.e. 4 years after the marriage of de facto complainant, the petitioner No.2 had no occasion to receive stridhan articles and to perpetrate cruelty upon the de facto complainant over demand of money and further to express dissatisfaction with respect to the items presented at the time of marriage of de facto complainant. Thus according to revisionists, it was thus quite impossible to perpetrate cruelty upon the de facto complainant, even after the date of the marriage of petitioner No.2 with petitioner No.1. Further argument was raised by the revisionists that the allegation made in the complaint, even if they were taken at their face value, and accepted their entirety, would not constitute a prima facie offence against the petitioners, and further that the complaint suffered from absurdity, being inherently improbable, on the basis of which, there could not be any reasonable presumption that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding again