The court quashed criminal proceedings due to vague allegations and emphasized the need for specific claims in matrimonial disputes to prevent abuse of legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding being ACGR case no.4836 of 2021 arising out of Haridevpur PS case no.299 of 2021 dated 01.12.2021 under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 324, 506, 377 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.

2. The petitioners’ case is as follows:-

a. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant being the opposite party no.1 whereas the petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law and petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant/opposite party no.2 herein.

b. The parties got married on 13th February, 2013 according to Hindu rites and customs and the same was an arranged marriage.

c. A written complaint dated 30.11.2021 was made by the opposite party no.2 and the same was treated as FIR no.299 of 2021 dated 01.12.2021 registered with the Haridevpur Police Station.

d. During the course of investigation the well wishers and relatives of the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2, intervened and a settlement was arrived at by and between the parties and a Memorandum of Understanding was executed being given effect to by making the payment of the first installment by the petitioner no.1. After which the opposite party no.2 was no more willing to proceed with the instant case.

e. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding being executed by and between the parties herein, the opposite party no.2 filed a suit for mutual divorce under Special Marriage Act before the District and Sessions Judge at Alipore being MAT Suit No.542 of 2022.

3. But, during the hearing of the revisional application, the opposite party no.2 has now withdrawn her consent to the amicable settlement which had been effected between the parties and, as such, an order dated 09.08.2023 was passed in this case observing that due to certain disputes, the joint petition of compromise could not be effected to and that the matter would be heard on contest.

4. Supplementary and an additional supplementary affidavit have been filed annexing several documents.

5. The written complaint in the present case was filed after eight years of marriage claiming mental and physical cruelty in her matrimonial home, by her husband and in laws, allegedly demanding dowry.

6. The following judgments have been relied upon on behalf of the petitioners:-

a. Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 299.

b. Mohd. Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum (Smt) & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 302.

c. Trisha Singh vs. Anurag Kumar, AIR 2024 SC 2939.

d. Dhiraj Vijaykumar Makhija vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Senior Inspector of Police & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1843.

e. Geeta Kapur vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR Online 2024 Bom 350.

f. Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr., 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 103.

g. Mahendra Solanki vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR Online 2021 Raj 125.

h. Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-56859-2023, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

i. Mohammed Moiz Hussain & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr., Criminal Petition No.1510 of 2019, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

j. Basanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Anr., CRLMC No.615 of 2023, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

k. Thomas and another vs. State of Kerala and others, 2016 CRI.L.J.1886.

7. In Sanjeev Kapoor vs Chandana Kapoor, in criminal appeal nos. 286 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1041 of 2020), on 19 February, 2020, the Supreme Court held:-

“17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to judgment of this Court in Mahua Biswas(Smt.) vs. Swagata Biswas and another, (1998) 2 SCC 359. In the above case, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. parties compromised and started living together but later fell apart. An objection was raised by the husband that order of maintena