JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R Case No.3520 of 2017 arising out of Bongaon Police Station Case No.986/17 dated 11.10.2017 under Sections 493/376/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon.

2. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party no.2, Rinki Mitra lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon and as per order the said complaint was treated as First Information Report and accordingly, Bongaon Police Station Case No.986/17 dated 11.10.2017 under Sections 493/376/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been started against the petitioner. It has been alleged in the said written complaint that the complainant is a divorcee and ten months ago she developed a relationship with the petitioner Santanu Bhattacharya and he promised to marry her and on that pretext they met each other intimately and during their relationship they had sexual intercourse on several occasions and they also started residing in a rented house. But subsequently he denied to marry her and thus cheated her. On 27.06.2017 one dramatic (?) marriage was solemnized with the help of a local club and thereafter he started to torture her and also assaulted her and her child.

3. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet on 19.11.2017 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon under Sections 493/376/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Sona Bhattacharjee.

4. The petitioner states that the said complaint lodged against the petitioner is false and concocted and the alleged incident or torture which has been described in the written complaint did not find place in any of the 161 statements recorded by Police and as such the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. Susnigdho Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings has been initiated in a malicious and malafide manner and with an oblique purpose of harassing the petitioner with the ulterior purpose of taking vengeance and spite him in eye of society. From the medical report it is seen that no injury was found and there are also many contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. As such the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

6. That the investigating officer without proper appreciation of the evidence, filed the charge sheet and as such the initiation and continuation of the instant case against the petitioner, is a gross abuse of process of law.

7. That the criminal proceeding is being used as a weapon and the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

8. In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

9. Ms. Rita Datta, learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary.

10. From the materials on record the following facts are before this court:-

i) The complainant/opposite party is a divorcee

ii) As per her statement in the complaint, she developed a physical relationship with the accused/petitioner when he (allegedly) promised to marry her.

iii) A dramatic (?) marriage was also solemnized with the help of a local club.

iv) Statements of her ex-husband, neighbours, club members, maid servant has been recorded. They have all corroborated the complainant.

11. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is as follows:-

“375. Rape.—A man is said to commit “rape” if he

(a) Penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) Inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(c) Manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetratio