Petitions to quash FIRs require clear allegations of cognizable offences; mere assertions may not suffice under IPC Section 498A.

CAV On : 14.07.2025 Judgment On : 29.07.2025 Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the appellant for quashing of the proceeding in connection with GR Case No. 1569 of 2003 arising out of Madhyamgram P.S. Case No. 381 of 2023 dated 16.06.2023 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed in connection with the aforesaid proceedings pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ahmed has submitted that the petitioner married the respondent no. 2, eighteen years ago but without any rhyme and reason the relevant police case was filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner and her mother under section 498A of Indian Penal Code . It is a settled principle of law that if the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence, the said FIR should be quashed. In this case, the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and his mother. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the relevant proceedings pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate should be quashed. The learned counsel has submitted two decisions in this regard Kashinath Bhar & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal, (CRA no. 131 of 2006, decided on 12.06.2009) Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (Cr. MMO No. 84 of 2024 with Cr. MMO No. 798 of 2023, decided on

14.06.2024)

3. The learned counsel for the State Mr. Ganguly has opposed the prayer for quashing the relevant proceeding as aforesaid on the ground that after investigation, the concerned I.O. has submitted chargsheet against petitioner and his mother under Section 498A of IPC and the charge is to be framed against the petitioner and her mother within a very short span of time. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the State that there are materials in the case diary showing that the petitioner and his mother inflicted physical and mental torture upon the opposite party no. 2/wife. The witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have also disclosed that the petitioner does not take any responsibility of his wife/opposite party no.2 and two children.

4. The learned counsel Mr. Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the term ‘cruelty’ as found in Section 498A of IPC should be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the women or such harassment of the women was only to make any unlawful demand of property etc. Mr. Ahmed has also drawn the attention of this court to the contents of the FIR and has submitted that ingredients of Section 498A of IPC are not available in the alleged commission of offence.

5. After considering the rival contention of the parties, I find that the petitioner was unable to serve copy of the instant application upon the opposite party no. 2/wife. The notice issued from the side of the petitioner upon the opposite party no.2 returned without service. This court directed the O.C. Duttapukur P.S. to issue notice upon the respondent no. 2/wife of the petitioner but it is returned with the report that at present the respondent no. 2 is not residing in the given address.

6. Though I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and found that there is no allegation of dowry demand from the part of the petitioner as alleged in the FIR but there are allegations