IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the requirement for conclusive evidence of cruelty under section 498A of IPC and the distinction between cruelty and entitlement to maintenance under section 125 of the Code.

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This is an application under section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter called as Code) wherein petitioner has sought for quashing all impugned proceedings and orders passed in Misc. Case no. 515 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Code, in consequence of the judgment dated 8th July, 2022 passed by this High Court in ACGR case no. 4107 of 2016, discharging the petitioner from the offences under section 498-A/406 and 34 of the Indian Penal code 1860 (IPC).

2. Petitioner contended that a purported marriage was held on 22.02.2016 in between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 herein and the wife opposite party stayed only for 7 days in two phases in her matrimonial home and ultimately left matrimonial home on 03.03.2016

3. Petitioner’s further case is that the petitioner thereafter filed a suit for declaring nullity of said purported marriage and immediate after getting notice of that suit, as a counter blast, the opposite party/wife started harassing the petitioner and his family members with false and fabricated allegations.

4. The opposite party/wife lodged an FIR on 12.07.2016 against the petitioner under section 498A, 406 and 34 IPC and also filed present case seeking maintenance under section 125 of the Code on 15.07.2016. Petitioner further submits that it is evident that the allegations regarding cruelty levelled against the petitioner herein in the aforesaid two cases i.e. in the FIR being no. 424 dated 12.07.2016 and the present maintenance petition being M. 515 of 2016 dated 15.07.2016 are in general same and date wise similar.

5. He further submits that the petitioner preferred an application under section 482 of the Code for quashing the aforesaid FIR No. 424 dated 12.07.2016 and this Court by its judgment dated 8th July, 2022 allowed the prayer of the petitioner and thereby quashed the aforesaid criminal proceeding being FIR No. 424 dated 12.07.2016 with the observation that the allegations made in the written complaint are not only vague and omnibus but also bereaved of any specific detail and has been attributed against the present petitioner in furtherance of general and omnibus allegations which are not at all sufficient to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the present petitioner have committed any offence far from committing offence either under section 498-A or under section 406 of IPC and there is reason to believe that the veiled object behind the lame prosecution is the counter blast of the matrimonial suit filed by the petitioner and with an object to rope the present petitioner due to her matrimony discord.

6. Petitioner further submits that from the aforesaid judgment it has been well established that the opposite party has made allegations falsely in her present application under section 125 of the Code that she was physically or mentally tortured at her matrimonial home or that she was subjected to dowry harassment by the petitioner or that her husband tortured her or drove her out from his house. On the contrary, it has been proved from her averment that she left her matrimonial home of her own accord with her father on 3.3.2016 evening for some medical test.

7. Mr. Roy Chowdhury learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the status of husband and wife has not yet been established since it was a pre-planned fraud marriage arranged by the opposite party and for which petitioner has filed aforesaid matrimonial suit for declaring the marriage as nullity. He further submits that all the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment in the petition in M. Case No. 515 of 2016 made by the opposite party herein against the petitioner being date wise similar to those of the complaint made in FIR and it has been established from the judgment passed by the High Court that opposite party has made false allegations swearing affidavit in her petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C.

8. Acc