Specific allegations and particularization of the role of each accused are essential in complaints related to matrimonial disputes to avoid misuse of the process of law and potential harassment of relatives without prima facie evidence.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This revisional application has been preferred for quashing of the proceeding in connection with Bidhannagar Police Station case no. 2 of 2019 dated 7.1.2019 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending before the court of learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.

2. It has been contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is the uncle-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, who has initiated the abovementioned impugned proceeding. The said opposite party no. 2/wife has arrayed her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and the present petitioner who is her uncle-in-law.

3. In the FIR, the opposite party no. 2 wife has alleged that after wedding she came to learn that her husband Amit Goel was divorced once and his previous marriage fell apart due to torture committed by the in-laws. The informant/opposite party No. 2 was also subjected to regular physical and mental torture by her husband and in laws on account of demand for dowry and despite several gifts being sent to her husband, such marriage was still falling apart and the informant could not resolve the situation and was forced to leave her matrimonial house. On 31.12.2016, the informant was seriously assaulted by her in laws and was thrown out of her matrimonial house. Such incident repeatedly occurred on several times. On 3.1.2019, the informant went to her matrimonial home with her parents to resolve the disputes, but she was again assaulted and she got several injuries on her body.

4. During investigation, the present petitioner was served notice under Section 41A which he had duly complied and also obtained anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee strenuously argued that it transpires from a bare perusal of the written complaint that there is no allegation against the present petitioner who resides separately as reflected from the complaint itself but merely because he is one of the relative of the husband of the opposite party no. 2, so he has been arrayed as accused person in the instant case. On 13.2.2019, the informant with her family members along with police officers had seized all the articles belonging to the informant including some belongings of her mother-in-law. Actually, the informant had no intention in continuing the marriage and left her matrimonial home in December 2016 on her own accord. It is further submitted that the informant in a designed and calculated manner left her matrimonial home with her belongings and as a means to harass and vex the petitioner, has instituted this false case which does not disclose any ingredient of the Sections under which the present petitioner has been indicted. The complaint has not disclosed any specific overt act on the part of the present petitioner, on the basis of which the allegation can be sustained under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation under section 406 of Indian Penal Code is also not applicable as the petitioner had taken away all her belongings on multiple occasions from 3.1.2109 to 13.2.2019. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the present petitioner does not reside with the other family members and he is wholly disconnected with the family affairs of the informant and the complaint does not mention any specific overt act on petitioner's part which can suggest that he had inflicted any kind of cruelty with respect to any demand for dowry or has committed criminal breach of trust. In this context, Mr. Mukherjee learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the Apex Court judgments reported in (2022) SCC online Supreme court 162, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and (2009) 10 SCC 184.

6. I have gone through the materials in the case diary. First of all, it appears that though in the written complaint the name of the present petitioner transpired at the bottom of the complaint as accused no.