The judgment established the importance of specific evidence and cautioned against general omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, emphasizing the potential misuse of Section 498A IPC and the need for circumspection in dealing with such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for setting aside of the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Serampore at Hooghy in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2016, thereby affirming the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26.08.2015 passed in connection with G.R. Case No. 37 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No. 9 of 2007 dated 15.01.2007 registered for investigation into alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2nd Court, Serampore thereby acquitting the opposite party no.2 herein from the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The revision is thus against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

3. The petitioner/de facto complainant’s case is that pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Serampore filed by the petitioner and the direction to the Dankuni Police Station by the Learned Magistrate to investigate into the allegations made out in the said complaint, Dankuni Police Station Case No. 9 of 2007 dated 15.01.2007 was registered for investigation into alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. The prosecution case is to effect that petitioner was married to the Opposite party no. 2, on 13.05.1974 according to Hindu rites and customs. The Opposite party no.2 being a person of uncertain temperament and extremely miserly person used to inflict torture upon the petitioner from the very inception of the material relationship. He allegedly tortured the petitioner physically, mentally and economically. Such inhuman activities of the opposite party no. 2 continued for 34 long years and the petitioner had to bear with such activities for such a long duration without any concrete protest from her side. Finally on 13.01.2007 the Opposite party no. 2 entered into the house of petitioner and assaulted her by pushing her against the wall and had brutally assaulted her. He had also taken away all the cheque books, bank account and other relevant documents.

5. Upon conclusion of such investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Opposite party no. 2.

6. The Trial Court framed charge against the Opposite party no. 2 herein under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. Upon conclusion of the trial, by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2015, the Magistrate acquitted the Opposite party no.2 herein from the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Serampore thereby acquitting the Opposite party no.2 herein from the charge under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same was registered as Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 23/2016.

9. After hearing both the parties the Learned District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court Serampore at Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as the Learned Judge) vide Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2019 affirmed the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26.08.2015.

10. Hence the revision.

11. FINDINGS:-

i) The case registered against the Opposite party no.2/husband is registered as Dankuni P.S. case no. No. 9 of 2007 dated 15.01.2007 under Sections 498A/323 IPC.

ii) The petition of complaint states that the marriage between the parties was registered on 13.05.1974 and that the petitioner was tortured since then. It has been also stated that the Opposite party no. 2 left her and later came and assaulted her and has allegedly taken aw