The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. - This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. No.9893 of 2021 in connection with Nimta P.S. Case No. 851 of 2021 dated 07.11.2021 under Sections 186/341/353/354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code initiated by the I.O. concern of Nimta Police station suo-motu pending before the Learned A.C.J.M., Barrackpore.

2. Facts leading to filing of this application are that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized through negotiation on 21st February, 2021. After marriage their marital life was happy for few months. There was no problem from any corner. Both were residing separately in the premises no. 121, Lalit Gupta Street, Nimta Roy Para, a house owned by petitioner's father. But suddenly without any notice and reasonable excuse, she left the matrimonial home keeping the house under lock and key. Petitioner had contacted her on several occasions over phone, when he came to know she went to her parents' house, her reply was in negative to lead conjugal life. She raised question first time about his potentiality and advised for medical consultation. Accordingly, the petitioner consulted with reputed neurologist for her satisfaction. After advising some tests he was found no infirmity or deficiency on his part but despite of the facts, she was not willing to stay with the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas on 1st day of July, 2021 praying restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving summon, suddenly she lodged a written complaint against the petitioner and other in-laws without any cause in resulting Nimta P.S. Case No. 704 of 2021 dated 17.09.2021 under Section 498A/420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On 6th day of November, 2021 the I.O. concern had intimated over phone to him that streedhan articles should be handover to the opposite party from the matrimonial home as per complaint lodge by the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, petitioner informed over phone to his wife to take delivery of the streedhan articles from the matrimonial home at any time within next 24 hours but she refused to take delivery as such said facts was intimated to the I.O. concern and requested that the articles could be brought at the police station in response I.O. gave her consent accordingly petitioner take all streedhan articles to the police station but during transit I.O. concern informed over phone to the petitioner she would come to seize the streedhan from his matrimonial home as per the list furnished by her though no such list or copy had been served upon the petitioner. Thereafter the I.O., a lady member along with three male police visited the house of the petitioner and collected streedhan articles including other articles, which was purchased by petitioner from his own money like pressure cooker and other cooking vessels and had been lifted in the name of compliance of Section 406 of the I.P.C though the petitioner had disputed regarding those items which were not streedhan. Upon such objection, the I.O. concern warned him to place him behind the bar if raised any voice. The petitioner was asked to meet in the Police Station after collecting all the articles by the I.O. No misbehaviour or assault or hurling any oblique language used by the petitioner during such recovery. When he reached to the police station he came to know that I.O. has registered Nimta Police Station Case No. 851/2021 dated 07.11.2021 under Sections 186/341/353/354 and 506 of the I.P.C against the petitioner presently pending before the learned A.C.J.M., North 24 Paraganas without any such incident as alleged by the I.O. concern in the said F.I.R. Actually petitioner had submitted a complaint before the said I.O. earlier against her wife but the I.