The court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations and applied the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings being A.G.R. No. 2055/2017 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ACJM), Alipore arising out of Netaji Nagar Police Station Case no. 134 of 2017 dated 26.04.2017 under Sections 498A/325/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and addition of Section 406 of IPC by an order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Ld. ACJM, Alipore.

Brief Facts:-

2. Arunita Paul/opposite party no. 2, daughter of Mr. Dilip Paul got married to Suman Kar (son of the petitioners) on 13.12.2013 at Kolkata. Suman Kar is a citizen of United Kingdom (for short UK) and his parental house is at 14/3/1, Sribash Dutta Lane, Panchanantala Road, P.O. Panchanantala, P.S. Howrah, Howrah 711101 where his parents resided. Only after five (5) days of marriage the husband of opposite party no. 2 left for U.K. Since then upto December, 2014 opposite party no. 2 was in touch with her husband by means of text messages, phone calls and e-mails. She was living with her in-laws in her matrimonial home without her husband during this period. In between opposite party no. 2 never met her husband in person. Her husband did not even try to arrange a tourist visa for opposite party no. 2 and stopped all forms of communication with her since August, 2015. The husband of the opposite party no. 2 never made an honest effort so that she gets the visa to U.K. to live with him. In fact, he allegedly supplied in sufficient papers/documents required for the same and tried his level best so that opposite party no. 2 does not get the visa. On August, 2015 when she finally got the visa on her third attempt she received an e-mail from her husband that he had spoken to immigration authorities and to the embassy in U.K. to cancel her visa and asked her not to board the flight clarifying the fact that he did not want to take any responsibility of her in U.K. anymore. In the mean time, the petitioners herein in furtherance of their common intention subjected the opposite party no. 2 to immense mental and physical torture even to the extent of pushing the opposite party no. 2 towards staircase causing grievous hurt to opposite party no. 2. Eventually, on 22nd of August, 2015 petitioners herein forced her to leave her matrimonial home by physically abusing her in front of their relatives. Driven by such misery and finding no alternative she filed a case being A.C. Case no. 3705 of 2016 in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore for maintenance and obtained an ex-parte order for maintenance on 23rd December, 2016. After receiving this Court order the husband of opposite party no. 2 sent a divorce notice from UK where eventually he managed to obtain a decree of divorce. After realizing the fact that her husband was not at all interested in any sort of reconciliation she finally decided to lodge a complaint in Netaji Nagar Police Station on 25.04.2017 on the basis of which FIR being no. 134 was lodged on 26.04.2017 and as a sequel, case has been initiated for which the instant petitioners have filed the instant revisional application.

3. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that all the allegation made in the complaint are omnibus in nature not substantiated by the attending facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the complaint in connection with this case was lodged with an ulterior motive for wreacking vengeance on the petitioners, only on receipt of divorce notice on 22.03.2017 while she left the house of the petitioner on 13.09.2015 along with her all belongings voluntarily leaving a declaration made by her.

4. Mr. Chatterjee has strenuously contended that the op 2 filed this complaint against the petitioners who are octogenarian. Had there been any allegation of torture caused upon her at the instance of the petitioners, acco