IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for specific particulars of the offence committed by each accused and held that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of court.

JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 5375 of 2019 arising out of New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 1145 of 2019 dated December, 19th, 2019 under section 498-A of Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC) presently pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. Petitioners contended that the petitioner no. 1 is the Father-in-Law, petitioner no. 2 is the Mother-In-Law and petitioner no. 3 is the married Sister-In-Law and petitioner no. 4 is the husband of the defacto complainant. Petitioners contended that the opposite party no. 2 before the present complain had earlier lodged another complain on 14.02.2016 contending that she was married with present petitioner no. 4, Raju Dhar and after marriage she had gone to her matrimonial house, but during her stay at her matrimonial house her Mother-in-Law started inflicting physical and mental torture upon her and thereafter the defacto complainant came back to her paternal home at Siliguri for continuing her studies. Subsequently her husband took her at garambasti after completion of studies. Few days thereafter her husband went to Malda at her service place and taking advantage of her helplessness her Father-In-Law and Mother-In-Law being accused no. 1 and 2 forced her to work at their hotel and thereby inflicted physical and mental torture upon her. Thereafter her husband started ignoring her. In the meantime her husband got employment at Railway department. In the month of January 2011 her husband had physically assaulted her and had driven her out from the matrimonial home. Thereafter her parents went to her matrimonial home for settlement but the accused persons abused them with filthy language and thereafter her husband had stopped communication with her. Thereafter she had initiated one maintenance proceeding where the opposite party No. 4 herein appeared and denied the marriage.

2. On the basis of the said earlier complain Kalchini Police Station started case being Kalchini P.S. Case No. 37 of 2016 dated 14.02.2016 under section 498-A of the IPC. Investigating authority after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. After trial learned Magistrate on 17.08.2019 was pleased to pass an order of acquittal against the present petitioners and others. Four months thereafter the opposite party no. 2 herein again lodged present FIR against present petitioners on the basis of self same allegation of physical and mental torture on the demand of dowry. On perusal of the present/second FIR it appears that sum and substance of allegation levelled against the present petitioners is that she was subjected to physical and mental torture during her stay at her matrimonial house and she was driven out from her matrimonial home in the month of January, 2011. On the basis of said complaint present proceeding has been initiated.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Poddar submits that alleged incident of physical and mental torture occurred in January, 2011 and defacto complainant lodged FIR on 09.12.2019. He further submitted that registration of FIR and initiation of the proceeding without inquiry is in violation of law laid down in Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1. He further submits that defacto complainant created concocted story after acquittal of the present petitioners from the earlier case with intent to harass the whole family of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner herein has already filed a suit for declaration that the opposite party no. 2 is not legally married wife, which is sub-judice before the appropriate forum. Accordingly he has prayed for quashing the said proceeding.

4. It appears that inspite of service, opposite party no. 2 is not represented. Mr. Chakraborty on behalf of the state submits that it is true that an earlier p