A valid marriage is a prerequisite for Section 498A charges; serious allegations like rape warrant trial for thorough examination.

Judgment :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. This common judgment addresses two criminal revision applications, CRR 1333 of 2018 and CRR 1334 of 2018, both filed by Sri Partha Pritam Pal @ Sri Partha Pritom Pal against the same opposite party, Smt. Kanika Mondal, Nee Sikdar, Nee Pal. Although they arise from distinct complaints, the intertwined nature of the factual allegations and the commonality of the parties have necessitated a single disposition to ensure a just and legally sound conclusion by examining the full context of the allegations. The main question before me is whether the criminal cases filed by Smt. Kanika Mondal, Nee Sikdar, Nee Pal are a malicious misuse of the legal process.

Background Facts

2. The core of this matter is a relationship that existed between the petitioner, Sri Partha Pritam Pal @ Sri Partha Pritom Pal, and the complainant, Smt. Kanika Mondal, Nee Sikdar, Nee Pal. This relationship led to two separate police cases being filed in different locations.

a. Jorabagan Police Station Case No. 74 of 2017 (CRR 1333 of 2018): This case is based on a complaint by Smt. Kanika Mondal, Nee Sikdar, Nee Pal alleging a "de facto" marital relationship with the petitioner. She claims that while she was residing with him at her matrimonial house as husband and wife, he inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for a demand of money and gold from her father as dowry. As a result, the case was registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . The complainant alleges that during this relationship, she was eventually thrown out of the house.

b. Barasat Women Police Station Case No. 121 of 2017 (CRR 1334 of 2018): This case involves more serious allegations, registered under Section 376 of the IPC (rape). The complainant claims that Sri Pal promised to marry her, but this promise was false. She alleges that she consented to a sexual relationship because of this fraudulent promise, which, by law, amounts to rape. She also alleges physical assault, criminal intimidation, a forced abortion, and the use of caste-based slurs.

Arguments of the Parties

3. Mr. Bikram Chatterjee, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued that both cases should be quashed. He presented a clear defence, stating that the complaints are a malicious abuse of the law. He argued that the charge under Section 498A IPC is legally unsustainable because the petitioner was already legally married to another woman since 2002. He emphasized that there was no valid marriage existed with the complainant. He also highlighted that the complainant is a "habitual offender" who has filed similar cases against her own husband, suggesting that these complaints are part of a pattern of malicious prosecution for extortion.

4. Conversely, Mr. Debasish Roy, the Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and Md. Shafiul Alam, Learned Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 in CRR 1333 of 2018, argued that the case complainant must be allowed to proceed. He maintained that the allegations are serious and disclose valid criminal offenses. They emphasized that the truthfulness of these claims, particularly the fraudulent nature of the promise of marriage, can only be determined through a full trial, not at this preliminary stage. He correctly cited judgments like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which cautions courts against quashing a case unless it falls into the "rarest of rare" category. He also cited R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , 1960 AIR 862 which warns against conducting a "mini-tr