The court held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were an abuse of process of court and could be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT

Subhendu Samanta, J. - Both the criminal revisional applications were filed by Neha, a married lady along with her parents and brother for quashing of two criminal proceedings filed by the in-laws.

2. CRR 1770 of 2018 was filed for quashing of proceeding being GR Case No. 1938 of 2017 arising out of Coke Oven P.S Case No. 148 of 2017 u/s 406,420,120B, 506 of IPC. Now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, initiated by brother-in-law of Neha. CRR 3681 of 2015 was filed for quashing of CR No. 507 of 2014 initiated by mother-in-law of Neha on 14.12.2014 pending before JM, 3rd Court Durgapur u/s- 147,323,379,427,504,506 and 31 IPC.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the marriage between Neha Kumari and Rakesh Prasad Gupta was solemnised on 14.02.2014 according to Hindu Rights and Customs. After married the matrimonial disputes between the parties were cropped up.

4. Neha Kumari lodged at Women P.S. Chaibasa vide FIR No. 6 of 2014 dated 22.10.2014 u/s 498A and 314 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation police ended in charge sheet vide charge sheet No. 55/2015 dated 20.05.2015 u/s 498A of IPC against husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law.

5. Shila Debi Gupta lodged the complaint case vide CR No. 507 of 2014 on 04.12.2014 before ACJM, Durgapur against the wife, her parents and brother alleging for an offence punishable u/s 147,323,379,427,504,506 and 34 IPC. Complainant was examined in SA and processes were issued against the accused persons. After receiving the process the accused persons did not turn up thus, the WA was issued.

6. The brother-in-law also filed a petition of complaint against the Neha and her father and brother before the Learned ACJM Durgapur on 22.09.2017 alleging inter alia the offences against the accused persons committed u/s 406,420,120B, 506 IPC. On receiving the complaint the Magistrate directed the O.C Coak Oven P.S to investigate the same treating the petition of complaint as FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police registered Coak Oven P.S case No. 148 of 2017 dated 03.11.2017 u/s 406,420,120B and 406 IPC. After completion investigation police submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons vide CS No. 138 of 2017 dated 31.12.2017.

7. The Neha along with her parents and brother are before this court for quashing both the criminal proceeding.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reached just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The facts in the complaints are vague and indefinite. He further pointed out that after marriage inhuman torture was perpetrated upon Neha by her husband and in-laws at her matrimonial home, consequently the Neha lodged a complaint before the Chaibasa Women P.S against her husband and in-laws u/s 498A IPC; after completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet in that case. Out of sheer vengeance and as a counter- blast the mother-in-law lodged the complaint against the petitioners u/s 323,379 IPC. The husband and in-laws of Neha, to harass further, again lodged another petition of complaint before the ACJM, Durgapur in which the Coak Oven P.S case No. 148 of 2017 dated 03.11.2017 was registered. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on the same set of facts to different members of the same family having same objective being initiated two proceedings against the same set of accused persons. This is the instance of abuse of the powers of the court. He further submitted in both the cases the present petitioners are falsely implicated and harassed a lot.

9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that from the plain reading of the two petitions of complaint it would be revealed that they are self contradictory and purposive. The facts stated in the petition of complaint are so absurd that if any one can be