Vague and general allegations without specific particulars do not constitute legal offences, safeguarding against misuse of criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. In CRR 2449 of 2016: The Petitioner, Aparna Tripathi, wife of opposite party no. 2, Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of an order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Haldia, Purbo Medinipore in connection with S.T. 4/12/14.

2. By the said order, the Learned Judge was pleased to dispose of the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. dated 06.02.2016 filed by the opposite party no. 2 and 3 herein and was pleased to hold that there is no ingredient and/or materials found under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite party nos. 2 and 3. However, it was observed that there are materials for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/506 of IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the D.P. Act against Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi and Karunendra Tripathi and therefore, the record was sent to the Learned ACJM, Haldia, for its disposal.

3. In CRR 389 of 2017: The three Petitioners including Karunendra Tripathi have preferred this Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 220 of 2013 arising out of Haldia Police Station Case No. 24 dated 22.02.2013 under Sections 498A/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ') read with Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act') pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia.

4. Both the Revisional applications are being heard analogously since both the matters arose from the same allegations and the same FIR as aforesaid, made by the petitioner/wife, and have been taken up for disposal by a common judgment for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.

FACTS OF THE CASE

5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners, essential for the fair and proper adjudication of the instant cases, are as follows:-

a. The petitioner no. 1 herein is the brother-in-law, petitioner no. 2, the uncle, and petitioner no. 3, the second wife of Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi.

b. On 22nd February, 2013, Opposite Party No.2 (wife) lodged a complaint at Haldia P.S. alleging that after her marriage with Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi on 28th June, 2009, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands. She further alleged that her husband had an extra-marital affair with one Shweta Mishra (W/o Chunilal Tripathi), and that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 threatened her. An FIR being Haldia P.S. Case No.24/2013 was registered under Sections 498A/323/506/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 DP Act. On 28th March, 2013, the IO sought addition of Section 314 , which the Ld. ACJM, Haldia allowed.

c. The petitioners alleged that after the purported investigation, on 29th June, 2013, Charge Sheet No.77/2013 was filed under Sections 498A/323/314/506/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 DP Act against four accused persons, including the Petitioners.

d. The petitioners alleged that after compliance of Section 207 of the CrPC, the case was committed by the Learned ACJM to the Court of the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Purba Medinipur for its trial.

e. The petitioners alleged that they prayed for discharge. However, after hearing, vide Order dated March 18, 2015, the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge was pleased to reject thei