The court clarified that vague allegations under Section 498A IPC do not constitute a prima facie case for prosecution.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Saibal Basu For the State : Ms. Sreyasi Biswas Heard on : 24.06.2025 Judgment on : 01.07.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioners herein have sought for quashing of the proceeding being GR case no. 1495 of 2012 presently pending before learned ACJM at Barasat, corresponding to Barasat P.S. Case No. 508 of 2012 dated

20.03.2012 under section 498A/406/323/34 IPC .

2. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the de facto complaint and petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner no.1 and petitioner No. 3 is the sister of petitioner no. 1. Petitioners contention is that petitioner no.1 being the husband, filed matrimonial suit before the Barasat court being Mat Suit no. 21 of 2012, seeking dissolution of matrimonial relationship between the parties herein. As soon as the opposite party/complainant came to know about such filing of divorce suit by the petitioner no.1, in order to wreck vengeance, she filed the instant complaint with baseless allegation against the petitioners under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., wherein the court below, without applying judicial mind directed the police to start investigation. In fact after receipt of notice of divorce suit filed by petitioner No.1, she not only lodged the present complaint but also filed another complaint case no.590 of 2012 under section 12/18/19/20/21/22, of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act., 2005. Aforesaid proceeding alleging domestic violence under Act. of 2005, subsequently got dismissed for default.

3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned criminal proceeding Mr. Basu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though de facto complainant in her evidence before court specifically admitted that her husband never tortured her and that her union with her husband usually used to take place at an interval of around three months and though she voluntarily decided not to proceed with the case of domestic violence, but surprisingly she has instituted the present proceeding only to harass the petitioner and his mother and sister and as such instant proceeding is liable to be quashed.

4. The opposite party/de facto complainant opposite party no.2 is not represented.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary and leaves the prayer made by the petitioner for the discretion of the court.

6. I have gone through the allegations levelled in the FIR, wherefrom it appears that evasive allegations have been made against the petitioner No.1 and his mother and sister. After going through the contents of the FIR as it stands, does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co accused, specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering. FIR does not disclose specific allegation which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioners and they are prima facie not found indulging in physical or mental torture to the FIR maker/ wife.

7. Now though the petitioners were initially booked under section 406 IPC also but after completion of investigation police dropped section 406 from the charge, noting that investigating authority did not attempt to recover stridhan property as because no such stridhan property gifted at the time of marriage. So, at this stage for the disposal of the present application, it is required to be answered by this court whether any allegation under section 498A or 323 of IPC has been made out or not against the petitioners during investigation.

8. Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows:-

Section 498A