JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1883 of 2017, presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. The said proceedings originated from Bantra P.S. Case No. 99/2017 dated 30.03.2017 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The fine balance between protecting a woman’s right to prosecute domestic cruelty and shielding the husband’s extended family from the rigors of a malicious or over-inclusive prosecution are involved. The Petitioners seek the exercise of this Court's inherent power to prevent what they characterize as an abuse of the criminal machinery in a matrimonial dispute.

2. The factual matrix, as unfolded during the extensive hearing, reveals a marital union between the Petitioner No. 1(Ashis Kumar Dutta, a practicing Advocate) and the Opposite Party No. 2 (Kasturi Dutta) that commenced on November 28, 2005. The marriage remained functionally intact for approximately twelve years, during which the parties resided together and twin daughters were born in 2012.

3. The peace of this domesticity, however, allegedly shattered on March 30, 2017, the day the wife left the matrimonial home. While the wife alleges a forced ouster, the husband contends the departure was a voluntary withdrawal from his society, facilitated by her father, who purportedly signed a "No-Complaint" declaration on the self-same date.

4. The complainant (wife) alleges that shortly after marriage, she became the target of sustained physical and mental cruelty fuelled by insatiable dowry demands. The narrative reaches its crescendo on 30.03.2017, when she claims she was physically assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial home "in a single cloth" after her father failed to provide Rs. 1,00,000 for a four-wheeler. She further alleged a history of drunken abuse by Petitioner No. 2 (Brother-in- law) and the misappropriation of her Stridhan.

5. Conversely, the Petitioners present a sharply divergent account. Petitioner No. 1, a practicing advocate of this Court, contends that the marriage was plagued by the wife's alleged extramarital involvement. He places heavy reliance on a written declaration signed by the wife's father on the very day of the separation, asserting that the departure was voluntary and devoid of grievances.

6. He claims the wife left voluntarily with her father and brother-in-law. Crucially, he relies on a "Written Declaration" signed by the wife's father on that date, stating he had no grievances against the in-laws. The husband immediately filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Matrimonial Suit No. 649/2018) and lodged a General Diary (GDE No. 1839) reporting her departure.

7. Following investigation, the police submitted a Charge Sheet (No. 76/2017) against the husband and brother-in-law, leading to the present Revisional Application.

8. Mr. Aritra Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued with much vehemence that the criminal machinery has been weaponized as a "counter-blast" to the husband’s prior filing of a Matrimonial Suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The FIR of wife is a "counter-blast" to the husband’s matrimonial suit. He relied extensively on the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), submitting that the allegations are so "absurd and inherently improbable" that no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

9. They emphasized the twelve-year delay in reporting dowry demands and the father's "No-Complaint" declaration as evidence of a manufactured case. Regarding Petitioner No. 2, they cited Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022), arguing the allegations are "vague and omnibus," against the brother-in-law