The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to scrutinize vague and omnibus allegations in cases under section 498A IPC, prevent the abuse of the criminal court process, and consider the long-term ramifications of a trial on the accused.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Present revisional application has been preferred against impugned order dated 18th December, 2018 passed by learned ACJM, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with T.R. Case No. 130 of 2017 corresponding to ACGR Case No. 4107 of 2016 arising out of Haridevpur Police Station Case No. 424 of 2016 dated 12th July, 2016 under sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) pending before the learned ACJM at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

2. Petitioners contended in their revisional application that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 took place with the petitioner no. 1 herein on 22th February 2016 under Special Marriage Act 1954. Petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of opposite party no.2. Opposite party No. 2 stayed in her matrimonial home only for seven days, in two phrases and after discovery of her chronic ailments she withdrew herself from the matrimonial home on 03.03.2016 night and has been residing at her parental home since then. A suit has been filed on 10th May 2016 under section 25 of the Special Marriage Act by petitioner No. 1 for a declaration of nullity of marriage and as a counter blast, opposite party no. 2 lodged a written complain to the Haridevpur Police Station on 1st July, 2016 after delay of 4 1/2 months of her last stay at her matrimonial home against the husband/petitioner no.1 and his old parents and for which present proceeding started.

3. Subsequently after completion of investigation police submitted charge- sheet against the present petitioners who are the husband and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 under section 498A, 406 and 34 of the I.P.C. Petitioners filed an application under section 239 of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Code) before the learned ACJM, Alipore, South 24 Parganas for discharging them, but by the impugned order dated 18th December, 2016, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Alipore, South 24 Parganas rejected the aforesaid prayer for discharge with an observation that there is sufficient materials in the record to frame charge against the accused persons though the learned ACJM, Alipore, South 24 Parganas has not given any reason for rejection of discharge petition, in respect of present petitioners.

4. Petitioner alleged that the petition of complaint which is a counter blast of aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 42/2016 filed by petitioner No. 1 herein and the charge sheet based on statements of opposite party no. 2 herein is self contradictory and without corroboration by any independent material. There is nothing in the record to constitute offence either under section 498A/34 or 406/34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly being aggrieved by the said rejection order in connection with petitioners' prayer for discharge, present revisional application has been preferred.

5. Mr. Ajoy Roy Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that learned trial court has not assigned any specific ground for rejecting the prayer for discharge under section 239 of the code filed by the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 herein who are accused No. 1 and accused no. 3 as per written complain. Even if all allegations in F.I.R. and materials in the charge-sheet are taken on its face value, even then it does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. Mr. Roy Choudhury further submits that there is not even a single allegation that the opposite party no. 2 was ever harassed by present petitioners with respect to demand of dowry in sort of cruelty to constitute offence under section 498A, nor such allegation has been leveled in the F.I.R. The offence under section 406 also appears to be absurd in view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 herself admitted in a written undertaking that she herself taken back all her gold ornaments much before lodging of the aforesaid complain. Inspite of that written acknowledgement the opposite party no. 2 has falsely stated in the written complain that all her st