JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Complaint Case No. 41 of 2018 under Sections 323/498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class First Court at Barrackpore.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 and is a septuagenarian and a patient of brain stroke (transient ischemic attack (TIA)) since last ten years. She is also suffering from acute Arthritis due to degenerate bone disease, resulting in severe disability and is mostly moving on wheel chair.

3. The petitioner no. 2 is the unmarried sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. She is an MBA graduate and does not reside at the aforementioned address on a regular basis as she is on marketing job which involves extensive travelling from Hyderabad to Delhi, Visakhapatnam, Warangal and many other places in India.

4. On February 6, 2018 the opposite party no. 2 herein filed a complaint before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore [in short the Learned ACJM] therein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against vide order dated February 6, 2018 the Learned ACJM was pleased to take cognizance and transferred the case to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Court at Barrackpore for disposal.

5. The Learned Trial Magistrate after recording the additional statement was pleased to issue process.

6. The petitioners state that on June 30, 2013 the opposite party no.2 got married to the son of the petitioner no.1 (Mr. Prithvish Roy, hereinafter referred to as Prithvish) according to the Hindu rites and customs. On or about the first week of July 2013, the couple moved to Hyderabad and stayed there for about 60 days. Thereafter the couple left for Delhi on September 02, 2013. The petitioners herein hardly had any occasion to interact with the opposite party no. 2 who used to stay at a faraway place. The petitioners therefore never got themselves involved in the marital life of Prithvish and the opposite party no. 2.

7. On January 6, 2015 on the pretext of attending the marriage of her brother, the opposite party no. 2 came back to her parental home at Kolkata. Prithvish also accompanied her and subsequently came back. The opposite party no. 2 decided to stay back. The opposite party no.2 kept avoiding Prithvish’s calls and his attempt to persuade the opposite party no. 2 to come back failed.

8. Having no other alternative Prithvish filed a petition on 23.06.2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 thereby seeking restitution of conjugal rights which was registered as O.P. No. 465 of 2015.

9. After waiting for more that 15 months, since Prithvish did not receive any response from the opposite party no. 2, Prithvish filed an application on 03.09.2016 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce before the Court of Learned City Civil Court, Secunderabad, Telangana.

10. Prithvish also lodged a First Information Report with Marredpally Police Station at Secunderabad on 30th July 2017 which was registered as Marredpally Police Station Case No. 279 of 2017 dated 7th October 2017 under Section 406 read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. Subsequent to the registration of Marredpally Police Station Case No. 279 of 2017 by Mr. Prithvish Roy, the opposite party no. 2 herein moved a petition under Section 24 Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India thereby seeking transfer of the divorce proceedings pending before the City Civil Court, Secunderabad, Telangana, to the Court of the Learned District Judge at Alipore which was registered as T.P. (Civil) No. 2241 of 2017. The petitioners state that vide order dated 6th December 2018 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice and stayed the proceedings. The transfer petition is pending ad