The court held that allegations in a complaint must substantiate a prima facie case; mere accusations without evidence do not constitute an offence, especially when intended to harass.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. N. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 seeking quashing of complaint filed by the respondent on 22.08.2019 being CR Case No.251/2019 under Sections 406/506/34 of IPC and the order of cognizance taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara by order dated 17.02.2020 under Sections 406/506/34 of IPC against the accused/petitioners.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint on 22.08.2019 against the petitioner No.1 i.e. wife, petitioner No.2 i.e. mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 i.e. father-in-law before the Magistrate Court alleging, inter-alia, that the petitioner No.1 at the instance of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 demanded certain articles from the respondent and the respondent for the sake of upholding peace had brought the same through his hard earned money.

4. It is the further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No.1 after a few days started to threaten the respondent to end their marriage and all of a sudden on 19.07.2019 ousted him from the house of the petitioners. It is further alleged that when the respondent went to the house of the petitioners to try to reconcile the matter, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 verbally abused the respondent.

5. Accordingly, the statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses were recorded. After perusing the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant and the statement of the witnesses, the Magistrate Court on 17.02.2020 took cognizance under Section 406/506/34 of IPC against the accused/petitioners. Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the cognizance taken by the Magistrate Court.

6. Mr. N. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is amply evident on the reading of the allegations set out in the FIR that no ingredients of Section 406 of IPC is made out even if the allegations are taken to be correct at their face value.

7. He further submits that similarly the allegations as regards alleged threat as set out in the complaint is also not sufficient enough to constitute the offence under Section 506 of IPC. He further submits that from the complaint as well as the material collected by the prosecution, it is apparent that the respondent has lodged the complaint after receiving the talaknama from the petitioner No.1. He accordingly submits that in the backdrop of such facts, it is amply evident that the complaint has been lodged with mala-fide intention and personal grudge solely to harass the petitioner No.1 and her parents.

8. In support of the aforesaid submissions he relies upon the principle Nos. 5 and 7 enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and also upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gaba & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 3 SCC 423

9. He accordingly submits that the instant complaint is a total abuse of the Court process and the order of the Magistrate Court taking cognizance under Section 406/506/34 of IPC is totally mechanical and without any application of mind whatsoever and therefore, the impugned order of the Magistrate Court is liable to be set aside and quashed.

10. Per contra, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is apparent from the averments set out in the FIR that the respondent with his hard earned money has procured the household items including mobile phone and gold ornaments which the wife after throwing him out from the house and issuing a talaqnama has refused to return the same to him and therefore the ingredients of Section 406 are clearly being made out against the accused/petitioners.

11. He further submits that wife being the custod