The inherent power of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash proceedings in a case where there is no substance in the allegations and no material exists to prima facie make out the complicity of the accused in a cognizable offence.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Asansol (W) Police Station Case No. 12 of 2017 dated 01.02.2017 under Sections 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 260 of 2017 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, District- Burdwan West.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the opposite party no. 2 Tultul Dutta lodged a Complaint Case in the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Asansol under Section 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code being Complaint Case No. 05 of 2017 against the petitioners and two others namely Suchitra Purkait and Bipad Taran Dutta stating inter alia that her marriage has been solemnized with one Sri Chittaranjan Dutta in the year 1999 and the husband of the complainant did not demand any dowry but the accuseds no. 1 and 2 started to create pressure upon the petitioner to bring money and assaulted her with fist and blow on 12.03.1999. Thereafter the complainant began to live in E.C.L. quarter. She was also not allowed to participate in the funeral ceremony of her 3rd brother in law and mother in law who died on 20.07.2000 and 21.11.2002 respectively. The complainant then again entered in the said premises (matrimonial home) and began to reside permanently with the accused persons on and from 05.08.2013 and on 17.10.2015 at about 2.20 P.M. the accused no. 4 along with accused no. 1 suddenly entered into her premises and abused her in filthy language. On 05.11.2016 the accuseds no. 1 to 3 threatened her to face dire consequences if she did not vacate the premises and even threatened to kill her and accused No. 5 threatened her saying he will rape the complainant. On the same day, the complainant went to lodge her complaint with Raniganj Police Station but the concerned Officer refused to accept the same and as such the complainant after 1 month 22 days i.e. on 02.01.2017 filed the petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Asansol under Section 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code praying for investigation of the case.

3. The Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint to Asansol (W) Police Station to treat the same as F.I.R. which has been duly received by the Asansol (W) Police Station on 01.02.2017 and started Asansol (W) Police Station Case being No. 12/17 under Sections 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and started investigation.

4. After completion of investigation police submitted report in final form vide Charge Sheet No. 19 of 2017 dated 17.02.2017 alleging involvement of the accuseds no. 2, 3 and 5 in alleged commission of offence under Sections 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code but discharged accuseds no. 1 and 4 holding inter alia that there is no evidence of involvement of those two accused in such incidents.

5. The petitioners state that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 has suppressed material facts in her complainant.

6. The petitioners case is that, accused no. 1 Bipad Taran Dutta filed a Partition Suit in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Asansol being Title Suit No. 76 of 2014 (Old No. 86 of 2013) against the husband of the complainant Chittaranjan Dutta, who tried to grab 1/3rd share of the property situated at Raniganj by force and also started illegal construction encroaching more than his share and refused to make partition of the property and created disturbance in the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the accused no. 1. The suit for partition for apportionment of the suit property by metes and bound was filed by accused No. 1 said Bipad Taran Dutta along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for injunction so that the defendant husband of the complainant could not make construction beyond his share and the Learned Civil Court being satisfied passed an orde