17.12.2025 Court No.34 Item.22 sg CRR 652 of 2023 In the matter of: Amit Baral …Petitioner.

Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Masooq Rahaman Mr. Raju Mondal …for the petitioner.

Mr. Debasish Roy Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mrs. Debjani Sahu …for the State.

1. None appears to represent the opposite party. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. Notice was served upon the opposite party and it was delivered on 6th September, 2025. On previous occasion also despite service he did not turn up.

Hence the matter is taken up in absence of the opposite party no.2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the present petitioner being the husband for quashing all the proceeding pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad at Berhampore under Section 498A/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is the fact of the case in a nut shell is that the marriage between the present petitioner and the defacto-complaint was solemnized about 12 to 15 years back and they were blessed with the male child and after than she left the matrimonial home after three years of marriage and started residing at a paternal house. Despite all efforts being no other alternative petitioner filed a suit for decree of divorce MAT 5 of 2016 and despite receiving the summons the complainant did not turn up in the said suit to contest the divorce suit.

4. The said suit was decreed ex parte on March 20, 2017 under Hindu Marriage Act. It is the case of the petitioner that opposite party was well aware about the decree of divorce as she received the summons of the said suit but did not file any proceeding for setting aside the suit ex parte decree passed against her. Long thereafter this complaint has been lodged by the defacto-complainant/wife against the present petitioner along with his family members only in order to harass and heckle the petitioner since the petitioner was passed in

2017.

5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the complaint is devoid of iota of material to constitute the offence under Section 498A/ 34. The sum and substance of the complaint was only that the husband refused to take her back and general allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture by and all of a sudden six months prior to lodging of complaint she came to learn that the present petitioner and the other family members have sold their residential accommodation and she found her one brother-in- law, A. Baral to work in a shop at Berhampore. Therefore the complaint was lodged.

6. The learned advocate has relied upon a decision of Priti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 and also the State of Haryana Vs. Bhaganlal where the parameters were mentioned when this Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. Learned advocate representing the State, on the other hand, handed over Case Diary submits that the complaint was lodged admittedly after the decree of divorce was passed. There are some statements recorded by the Investigating Officer which prima facie attracts under Section 498A.

7. Heard the submission of both learned advocates, perused the records as well as Case Diary. The marriage is of 15 years old and they were also blessed with a male child. From the content of the petition filed by this Court by the petitioner it can be found that Parties were living separately since after three years of marriage but the complaint is lodged by the defacto-complainant in the year 2023. No iota of material is shown as to what triggered her to lodge the complaint alleging torture upon her.

8. On careful perusal of the contents of the complaint lodged on 6^th January, 2023,Prima facie nothing can be found to manifest torture upon her both physically and mentally, by the in-laws and also the complaint is silent about mode and manner of torture inflicted as alleged. She admitted to live separately from her husband but did not mention the date