In the absence of any evidence of marriage or cohabitation between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant, and any marital relationship between them, the petitioner cannot be held liable for subjecting her to cruelty as a housewife on a demand of dowry.

1. THE petitioner has sought for quashing of the charge-sheet relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the following grounds;

(a) THE petitioner who is an Army Personnel and was posted at Jammu and Kashmir at the material point of time was at Army Campus and was not present at the village Bhikari Cheliama, Purulia.

(b) According to the complainant the marriage was solemnized on October 12, 2005 at Barabazar, Purulia, but on that day he was at his place of employment at Jammu and Kashmir.

(c) A long delay in lodging the FIR.

(d) Petitioners application for anticipatory bail has been allowed by this Court.

(e) According to the police report during investigation no evidence was found to establish the marriage between the petitioner and the defactocomplainant.

2. THE learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in his oral submission also reiterated the aforesaid points in support of the prayer for quashing. While the learned advocate for the State produced the Case Diary and submitted that sufficient materials have been collected by the police justifying submission of the charge-sheet.

I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. Considered the materials on record, more particularly, the Case Diary containing the evidentiary materials on the strength of which charge-sheet has been submitted. This Court has been moved for quashing of the charge-sheet, as such the question is to see whether on the evidentiary materials collected by the police during investigation the charge-sheeted offence has been made out or not. At this stage there is no scope to go into the truth or falsehood of those allegations and then to decide which version of the case is true whether that is the version of the prosecution or that of the defence. Those are the matters of trial.

3. SO far as the contention of the petitioner that on the date of the alleged marriage and at the time of the alleged incident he was present at his place of employment at Jammu and Kashmir is essentially a plea of alibi and cannot be taken up to consider without the trial. Similarly, the delay in lodging the FIR is a question of fact and same cannot also be gone into at this stage. The petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court is no ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. Now, the only question left for decision whether on the evidentiary materials collected by the police commission of the charge-sheeted offence has been disclosed or not. I find from the perusal of the Case Diary quite a large number of witnesses were examined during the investigation of the case including the defacto-complainant. According to the defacto-complainant she had a love affairs with the present petitioner, who was her co-villager. On October 12, 2007 the petitioner married her in a Shiva Temple situated in their village by putting vermilion on her head at the time of the marriage no priest was present. They took several photographs together but the same were not traceable. After marriage she was taken to the house of the petitioner and soon thereafter the relations of her husband, viz., her brothers, sister-in-laws and others started asking the defacto-complainant to bring money from her parents and on her failure to fulfill their demand they started torturing her both physically and mentally. According to their co-villagers Kalipada Garai, Takurdas Hembram, Haru Sardar that they knew about the love affairs between the defacto-complainant and the petitioner but neither they had any knowledge nor heard anything about their marriage. They had no knowledge as to whether the defacto-complainant Latika resided at the house of the petitioner and the petitioner Naran is a married man having his children. The witness Haru Sardar categorically stated that he was residing at the adjacent house of the petitioner but he never saw the defacto-complainant Latika there. The father of th