Point of Law: Expression ‘cruelty’, as contemplated in Section 498(A) IPC, covers only those conducts which may drive women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, three petitioners, namely, Shri Adhir Chandra Ghosh, Sri Pankaj Ghosh and Smti. Jhuma Ghosh have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 10.12.2021, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilashipara in C.R. Case No. 174/2021, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498(A)/406/506/34 of the IPC, against the present petitioners and another person, and all other subsequent orders thereto.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is adumbrated herein-below:

“The respondent herein-Smti Anupama Ghosh married with Shri Mantu Ghosh on 28.01.2012, as per Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, they started their conjugal life. The petitioner No. 1-Shri Adhir Chandra Ghosh is the father-in-law of the respondent and petitioner No. 2-Sri Pankaj Ghosh is her brother-in-law and Smti. Jhuma Ghosh is her sister-in-law and they used to live jointly. After few years, the respondent lodged a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisinal Judicial Magistrate, Bilashipara against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, being C.R. Case No. 174/2021 alleging inter-alia amongst others that they have subjected her to both physical and mental torture demanding dowry and also demanding a sum of 7,00,000/ lacs from her. Then the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint and evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, under Section 200 Cr.P.C. took cognizance of the offence under Section 498(A)/406/ 506/34 IPC and issued process against all the accused persons, including the present petitioners, vide impugned order dated 10.12.2021.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 10.12.2021, the petitioners approached this Court, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the said order and contended to set aside the same, inter alia, on the following grounds amongst others:

(i) That, the learned Court below erred in law as well as in facts while passing the impugned order resulting into abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.

(ii) That, the learned Court below had failed to take into consideration of the facts that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners and all the allegations were general allegations just to harass the petitioners by dragging them to the Court and the learned court below took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioners, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

(iii) That, the complaint petition and the evidence on record shows that the complainant made general allegations with regard to demand of dowry and harassment and nothing has been disclosed on which date or time and month by whom the alleged demand was made and the manner by which she was subjected to cruelty and how she was tortured and harassed, and the allegations against the petitioners are extremely vague and omnibus and appears to be leveled on account of hit of anger of the complainant with her husband.

(iv) That, the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners ought to have ascertained that there is prima facie material of the accused overt and covert act in doing the offences, but, in the instant case the allegation against the petitioners are omnibus and general allegation and the prosecution of the like nature would not be maintainable.

(v) That, the complainant never made any specific allegation against the petitioners in committing the offence. Therefore, without making any specific allegation against the petitioners, they were made accused in the case illegally and as such the learned Court below committed an abuse of the process of the Court in taking cognizance