A complaint alleging theft and cheating was quashed as the police acted under a magistrate's order, indicating no criminal offence was made out.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mrs. R. Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P.S. Laskar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2. By way of this petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint petition dated 19.07.2017 filed by the respondent No.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 19.07.2017 before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court alleging that on 12.12.2016, he was married with the petitioner as per Hindu rites and ritual and at the time of marriage, she disclosed her age as 21 years but after marriage, he came to know that her actual age is 25 years.

4. It is further alleged that after few days, he came to know her age is not 25 years but 32 years. Thereafter, the petitioner left the house and went to her paternal home. It is further alleged that on 06.07.2017, the petitioner came to the residence of the respondent with Police showing an Order dated 01.07.2017 passedin Case No. 431M/2017 under Section 94 Cr.PC and took away the stridhan articles. Though the respondent No. 2 opposed them not to take away the articles, it is alleged that the petitioner forcefully took away several items, which were owned by the complainant, which were one Hero Super SplenderMotory Cycle-AS-11-L/8760, two numbers of Usha Ceiling Fan and some gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 42,850/-.

5. Thereafter, the Court of JMFC, Cachar, Silchar, after perusing the case records, complaint petition and the statement of the complainant and other witnesses took cognizance of the offence under Sections 380/417/34 IPC against the petitioner. Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed for quashing the complaint as well as further proceedings of C.R. Case No.

303/2017 pending before the Court of JMFC, Cachar, Silchar.

6. Mrs. R. Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the complaint itself indicates that the petitioner accompanied by Police authorities, on the basis of an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court under Section 94 Cr.PC had taken away the stridhan articles and hence, no criminal offence whatsoever can be said to be made out on the basis of such averments.

7. She further submits that the Trial Court, in a most mechanical manner without any application of mind, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 380/417/34 IPC against the petitioner. She accordingly submits that the complaint as well as the further proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC, Cachar, Silchar is liable to be set aside and quashed.

8. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner had forcefully taken other items belonging to the respondent No. 2 and hence, a case of theft is clearly made out in the body of the said complaint.

9. Mr. P.S. Laskar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that it is apparent from the body of the complaint that the Police authorities had accompanied the petitioner on the strength of an order passed by the Magistrate Court under Section 94 Cr.PC and accordingly, no criminal case whatsoever can be said to be made out against the petitioner.

10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record.

11. It appears that the petitioner was married to the respondent No. 2 on 12.12.2016 and accordingly started conjugal life. It further appears that the petitioner being tortured both physically and mentally by the respondent No. 2 and having being finally droven out from the house of the respondent No. 2, she started living in her matrimonial homewhile all the articles including stridhan and those given by her family to the resondent No. 2 were in the house of the respondent No. 2.

12. It a