The Court reiterated that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution, and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the provision itself.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners are the husband and other matrimonial relations (in seriatim) of opposite party no.2/complainant. They have been aggrieved basically with the complaint dated August 29, 2015, filed by the opposite party no.2 and specifically with respect to the order of the trial Court dated August 10, 2016.

2. The opposite party no.2/wife of petitioner no.1 filed a complaint case in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kalna, Burdwan on August 29, 2015 being C.R Case No. 189 of 2015. The case was filed against all the six petitioners in this case. Allegations made out in the said complaint case by the present opposite party no.2 may be summarised as herein below:

Marriage was solemnised between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 on November 23, 2005 pursuant to which opposite party no.2 started living in her matrimonial house. There, she says that she has been subjected to immense mental torture and narrated incidence like the petitioner no.1/husband living separately from her in some other place, leaving the newlywed bride to stay alone amongst the lesser known in-laws, the in-laws including the married sister-in-law demanded money and pressurised her and subjected her to abusive languages and humiliation to schlenter the money out from her parents, also that the petitioner no.1 being the husband has inflicted torture on demand of more dowry. She has further stated that at the time of marriage her father gifted her various valuable properties which are her “Stree-Dhan” properties, though, allegedly the petitioners have deprived her from the enjoyment thereof. She has further stated that dowry in the form of various valuable gifts and cash amount of money were also provided to the petitioner and his family members. In her said complaint she has stated that due to the severe torture and unbearable situation created by the petitioners in her matrimonial home, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and have been virtually living separate from the petitioners including petitioner no.1 with effect from July, 2006. The further specific allegation of the complainant/opposite party no.2 made in the said complaint is that the various “Stree-Dhan” properties (enlisted in the complaint) have not been returned to him of which only she is the lawful owner and thus the petitioners have been alleged with the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC.

3. In the trial Court the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C, 1973, and on the basis of the same summons was issued to the present petitioners. Petitioners appeared in the Court and were granted bail. Later on the petitioners preferred to file their prayer for discharge. The said prayer were disposed of the trial Court vide order dated August 10, 2016, thereby rejecting petitioners prayer for discharge. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same and with the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against them, by the trial Court taking cognizance of the offence alleged against them and by issuance of summons to them to appear in the Court in the said trial as accused persons, the petitioners have moved this Court in this case with the prayer to invoke provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, and in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it by law, to quash the said proceeding in its entirety.

4. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mukhopadhyay appearing for the petitioner has very elaborately and candidly submitted that the present case against the petitioners is only an outcome of malice and vengeance by the complainant/wife, who has not ever been successful in her several earlier endeavours to victimise the petitioners. He says that there would be no sufficient material in this case against the petitioners to proceed against them and the proceedings now pending in the trial Court against his client is only a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

5. The first point argued by Mr. Mukhopadhyay is that of suppression of ver