Point of Law: Section 204 of Code does not mandate Magistrate to explicitly state reasons for issuance of summons.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.C. Choudhury and Mr. L.C. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent no. 2. She has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 17.09.2015 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam at Guwahati in Complaint Case No. 1755(C)/2015.

3. The petitioner has submitted that she had a love affair with the respondent No. 2 since 1997 and she got married to him in the year 2006, as per Hindu rites. From the threshold of her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws and finally her husband also started subjecting her to cruelty. Her husband was also maintaining an illicit relationship with Smt. ‘X’ and she caught her husband with Smt. ‘X’ red handed in an objectionable situation. This resulted in a quarrel between the petitioner, respondent no. 2 and Smt. ‘X’. Thereafter, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 became strained and at times he also even threatened to kill her and he tried to drive the petitioner out of her matrimonial home. The petitioner was impelled to lodge the FIR on 10.06.2015, which was registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 1126/2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 6002/2015 and finally, charge-sheet was laid against the respondent no. 2. Cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), but the respondent no. 2 had preferred a Criminal Petition No. 19/2016 with prayer for quashing the FIR dated 10.06.2015 as well as the proceedings on the basis of the FIR.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed a petition on 17.06.2015 before the Assam State Commission for Women against the respondent regarding cruelty meted out to her as well as the dowry demanded from her by the respondent no. 2 and notices were issued against the respondent no. 2 by the Commission for women.

5. In retaliation, the respondent no. 2 initiated a complaint case against the petitioner under Section 500 of IPC on 04.08.2015 with allegation of defamation against the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner.

6. It was alleged by the respondent no. 2 that, he was perturbed by the behaviour of the petitioner after his marriage to her. She was obstinate and used to visit undisclosed places. When the respondent no.2’s endeavours went in vain, he was impelled to pray for a decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between him and the petitioner and his petition was registered as F.C. (Civil) No. 264/2015 and notice was issued by the Family Court, Guwahati to the petitioner.

7. On receipt of notice, the petitioner left her matrimonial home and lodged the FIR dated 10.06.2015. The respondent no. 2’s written complaint was registered as Complaint Case No. 1755/2015 and his initial deposition was recorded and two witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Cognizance was taken by the learned Trial Court under Section 500 IPC and notices were issued to the petitioner, who appeared before the Court and prayed for bail.

8. The petitioner impugned the order of the learned trial Court contending inter-alia that the notices were issued arbitrarily without pondering over the matter. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts, as no offence under Section 499/500 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Further proceedings of the Court will indeed amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and so on and so forth.

9. The respondent No. 2 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the corresponding C.R. Case No. 1755C/2015 is now pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Kamrup (M). It is averred that the petitioner, with wild allegations had lodged an FIR against him and his parents but charge-sheet was laid only against him as the IO failed to collect any evidence against his parents and sister to book them u/s 498 A IPC and consequentially the case