IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty under Section 498(A) IPC requires continuous evidence of mental torture; absence of dowry demand and reliance on suspicion for I.T. Act allegations led to quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. B. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC read with Section 401 of the said Code praying for quashing the Charge Sheet and the proceedings in respect of PRC Case No.946/2023 arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No.20/2021 pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia.

3. On 03.02.2012, the Respondent No.2 Smti. Wagisha Sureka (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent No.2” only) had married the petitioner Abishek Sureka. The Respondent No.2 claims that soon after marriage, she was mentally tortured by her husband, her parents-in-law and by Smti. Devki Debi Sureka.

4. The sister (not named in the FIR) of her husband as well as the aforementioned persons always used to put pressure upon her to divorce her husband. Her husband used to tell her repeatedly that she was not his choice and he did not want to continue his married life with her. The behaviour of the petitioners has made her life measurable. She felt mentally suffocated. She developed ailments, like- depression, high pressure, insomnia, thyroid disorder etc.

5. The Respondent No.2 was not allowed to meet her friends nor was she given any money to buy her basic needs. The petitioners never had food with her. They never liked the food prepared by the Respondent No.2. For that matter, she was often criticized.

6. The petitioners always tried to send her back to the house of her parents. On some occasions, while she was staying with her parents at Tinsukia, the petitioners never asked her to come back. In spite of that, the petitioners always took the Respondent No.2 to social functions, just to show that they were having a good relationship with her.

7. The father of the Respondent No.2 also tried to interfere. On such occasions, the petitioners always agreed with the father of the Respondent No.2.

8. On 24.12.2020, Mrs. Soni and Mrs. Poonam, the two sisters of her husband quarrelled with her and told her that her husband would never accept her as his wife. That day at night, the sisters and the other family members celebrated Christmas but the Respondent No.2 was never invited. They allegedly threw abuses towards the parents and relatives of Respondent No.2, which she had heard with her own ears.

9. On 30.12.2020, the Respondent No.2 returned to Tinsukia and since 4 ^th January, 2021, she has been living there.

10. The Respondent No.2 has alleged that in the night of 01.01.2021, she had received multiple voice calls made by Rupesh, the domestic servant working in the house of the petitioners, at Hojai. By the aforesaid voice notes, the said Rupesh proposed to have sex with her and also used vulgar languages.

11. Next day, she informed her father about the aforesaid facts. On 03.01.2021, her father informed her father-in-law about the aforesaid facts. While her father was talking to her father-in-law, the latter hung up the phone. Her father tried to call him back, but on multiple occasions her father-in-law did not pick up phone.

12. The Respondent No.2 has alleged that the present petitioners have conspired together to malign her character and also created a ground for obtaining divorce. She claims that the aforementioned voice notes were actually sent by the present petitioners because Rupesh was not an expert in handling mobile phones.

13. With the aforesaid allegations, the Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on 4 ^th January, 2021.

14. Police registered the case being Tinsukia P.S. case No.20/2021. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet under Sections