The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific and distinct allegations in complaints, especially in matrimonial disputes, to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and the harassment of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Present revisional application has been directed for quashing of proceeding in respect of charge sheet No. 30 dated 31.03.2016 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. No. 99/2016, arisng out of Jamboni Police Station Case No. 16/16 dated 11.02.2016 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Jhargram.

2. Petitioners have contended in the revisional application that opposite party no.2 lodged a written complain on 11.02.2016 to the effect that she was married to Suman Mondal on 18.02.2011 and present petitioner being the parents in-law used to instigate their son to break up the matrimonial relationship and on 10.02.2016 when the opposite party No. 2 along with her husband came to her in-laws house, the petitioners inflicted mental torture upon her.

3. Mr. Debasish Kar learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence and on the date of alleged incident petitioner No. 1 was hospitalized. Moreover ingredients of section 498A of IPC are completely absent in the present case and statements made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) by the witnesses do not support prosecution case. He further submits that if the entire allegations in complain is taken to be true then also it does not disclose any offence against the present petitioners.

4. Mr. Kallol Mondal learned advocate appearing for the state submits that evidence is going on before the trial court and whether the materials collected during investigation constitutes any offence or not will be decided at the trial and as trial is continuing it would not be proper to quash the proceeding invoking section 482 of the code.

5. The case as set out in complain may be summarized as follows:

(a) After marriage father-in-law i.e. petitioner no. 1 regularly insisted husband of defacto complainant not to maintain any sort of conjugal relationship with opposite party no.2.

(b) Whenever opposite party no. 2 came to her in-laws house with her husband, her father-in-law i.e. petitioner no. 1 assaulted her mentally again and again.

(c) When her husband came to his home without opposite party no. 2, he was repeatedly provoked against opposite party no. 2 and compelled him not to contact with opposite party no.2. When opposite party No.2 called her in-laws over telephone with request to allow her to talk with her husband, then her inlaws used to give her slang and humiliate her.

(d) Being the only daughter of her parents there was a mutual understanding prior to her marriage with opposite party no. 2 that she will stay at Madhyamgram to look after her father who is a cancer patient and her mother who is patient of asthma and arthritis. Inspite of such understanding the petitioners forcibly insisted her to stay at Kapgari Jambani, though she was not at all agreable to this and as a result her husband was strongly pressurized to give her divorce.

(e) Recently when opposite party No. 2 came to see her father-in-law i.e. petitioner no. 1 on 10.02.2019, at that time her father-in-law went after her and attempted to assault her physically with ferocious attitude and her husband rescued her from the place, otherwise her life would have been at a stake.

(f) On 10.02.2016 petitioner No. 2 (mother-in-law) threatened her husband over telephone not to come to their house in future as said house is her husband's house.

(g) Life of opposite party no.2 and her husband is full of risk and insecured and as such opposite party no. 2 was compelled to lodge F.I.R. against her in- laws.

6. During investigation police had recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. out of which one Swapan Karan stated that the petitioners inflicted mental torture upon Opposite Party No. 2 for a long time as the opposite party No. 2, few days after marriage returned to her parents house and as opposite Part