The court emphasized the principles of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and cited relevant case laws to support its decision to quash the proceedings in the present case.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred praying for quashing of F.I.R. being Hemnagar Coastal Police Station Case No. 46/2020 dated 09.09.2020 and proceeding being G.R. Case No. 3835 of 2020 arising out of Hemnagar Coastal Police Station Case being No. 46/2020 dated 09.09.2020 under Sections 498A/323/406/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. In spite of due service there is no representation of behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The Petitioner no. 1 was married with the Opposite Party No. 2 in the year 2013 as per Hindu Rites & Customs. The Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are father and brother of the Petitioner No. 1 and father-in-law & brother-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2. The Petitioner No. 4 is wife of Petitioner No. 3 and Petitioner No. 5 is mother of Petitioner No. 1 & 3 and thus the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2/complainant.

4. After the birth of a child, the Opposite Party No. 2/wife became extremely arrogant. The Opposite Party No. 2 clearly informed the petitioner no. 1 i.e. the husband, that the Opposite Party No. 2 was not interested to lead a conjugal life with the petitioner no. 1. She asked the petitioner no. 1 to live separately with her in a separate mess. The Petitioner No. 1 failed to live separately because his parents i.e. the Petitioner No. 2 & 5 are helpless and old. The Opposite Party No. 2 used to abuse the petitioner no. 1 in filthy language and inflict mental and physical torture on the Petitioner No.1. Ultimately on 23rd Chaitra, 1421 B.S. i.e. in the month of April 2014, the Opposite Party No. 2 left her matrimonial home and started to live separately with her minor son at her own will.

5. In such circumstances, the Petitioner No. 1 felt that it was impossible to continue the matrimonial tie and filed a Suit being MAT Suit No. 285 of 2015 praying for decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 received the summon. Ultimately on 27.05.2016, decree of divorce was passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas.

6. On 16.09.2020, the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged the present complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Hemnagar Coastal Police Station, making false allegations of demand for dowry and of attempt to kill her during the subsistence of her marriage.

FINDINGS:-

7. Section 498A of I.P.C., lays down:-

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Ingredients of offence.— The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A are as follows:-

(1) A woman was married;

(2) She was subjected to cruelty;

(3) Such cruelty consisted in —

(i) Any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical.

(ii) Harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand.

(iii) The woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.”

8. The complaint in the present case was lo