( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 182 of the Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioners is aimed at quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 140 of 2003 arising out of Raghunathganj P. S. Case No. 32 dated 10. 3. 2003 under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code (in short the i. P. O.) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, jangipur, Murshidabad.

( 2 ) MR. Mrinal Kanti Biswas, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that Ragunathganj P. S. Case No. 32 dated 10. 3. 2003 was registered on the basis of written complaint/f. I. R. submitted by O. P. No. 1 Malina Das, the wife of petitioner No. 1. The F. I. R. did not bear signature of the informant and a different person has written her name in the F. I. R. as the informant and the handwriting clearly indicates that the person who scribed F. I. R. also signed the name of informant. The F. I. R. which was the foundation of registration of the aforesaid Raghunathganj P. S. Case accordingly was not in accordance with law as in matrimonial matters, the wife or her parents or her relatives only can lodge written complaint or F. I. R. and any third party has no authority to lodge F. I. R. in matrimonial disputes, particularly concerning offence under section 498a of the I. P. C.

( 3 ) MR. Biswas further submitted that the wife was in the habit of leaving matrimonial home and her parents house is very near to her husband's house. There was a Mat. Suit also filed by the husband praying for divorce and the said suit ended in compromise. The contents of the F. I. R. if it is read on the whole without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it would reveal that the F. I. R. fails to establish prima facie elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. or any cognizable offence. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 1631 of the Cr. P. C. during investigation also fails to reveal prima face elements of offence under Suction 498a of the I. P. C. Mere bald allegations of physical and mental torture on O. P. No. 1 is not sufficient to attract elements of 498a of the I. P. C. Taking of cognizance by the learned magistrate over such F. I. R. and charge-sheet was bad in law and cognizance was taken mechanically without applying judicial mind. The proceeding is absolutely nullity as the F. I. R. was not signed by the de-facto complainant and it strikes at the very root or foundation of the prosecution case. This is a fit case where this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash the criminal proceeding. In support of his contention mr. Biswas placed reliance on some of the decisions namely, (Kaliyaperumal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu), reported in AIR 2003 SC 3828 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 1016, (R. G. Brealey v. The State of West Bengal), reported in (1996)2 cal HN page 362 and (B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana), reported in AIR 2003 sc 1386 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 498.

( 4 ) MR. Kasam Ali Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the state submitted that it is not necessary that the F. I. R. must contain the signature of the de-facto complainant. The law is well settled that even telephonic message may be treated as F. I. R. , and telephonic message does not contain signature of the person who gave the information. F. I. R. merely sets the law in motion, and at the time of registration of F. I. R. the only requirement is disclosure of cognizable offence in the information. The trial Court on consideration of evidence would consider whether the F. I. R. became invalid for not having the signature of the de facto complainant, and would also consider, whether thereby, the trial became illegality or that the accused suffered prejudice.

( 5 ) MR. Ahmed next contended that the F. I. R. contains sufficient elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. and the materi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document