The court upheld that allegations of cruelty unsupported by evidence do not warrant further investigation under the relevant procedural laws.

Order

09/07/2025 By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Criminal Misc. Petition under section 528 BNSS 2023 filed by the Petitioner/Complainant may kindly be allowed by quashing the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sriganganagar in case FIR No. 74/2009 and FR no. 127/2009 and order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Sriganganagar in Criminal Revision No. 24/2018 by which revision petition has been dismissed and request of the petitioner for sending the matter to the police for further investigation has been denied and the Hon’ble Court may be directed to the police Mahila Station, Sriganganagar that in FIR No. 74/2009 under section 406, 498-A IPC to investigate the matter further as per provisions of section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. / 193 (8) BNSS and the FR accepted by the learned courts below may be rejected.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint against her mother-in-law and four sisters-in-law after the death of her husband for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that she visited her maternal home after the death of her husband and upon returning to her in-law’s home, she was subjected to cruelty by the aforementioned accused.

3. The record of the case indicates that after making thorough investigation in the matter, the investigating agency submitted a negative Final Report before the competent criminal Court on the ground that though the petitioner alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws but the statements of various witnesses including the neighbours of her in-law’s house were recorded, wherein it was found that the petitioner is living separately from her in-laws and has never visited them after the death of her husband. It has also come on record that the Streedhan of the petitioner has already been recovered from one Ghanshyam Das. The petitioner and her father were intimated about the same, however, they refused to accept the seized Streedhan and, therefore, it now lies in the Malkhana of Mahila Police Station, Sriganganagar.

4. The learned trial Court, being satisfied with the contents of the negative Final Report and the investigation conducted in the matter by the Investigating Agency, was pleased to accept the same. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order of learned trial Court dated 08.06.2018 which came to be rejected by the learned revisional Court by a detailed order dated 25.10.2024. The revisional Court in its order has observed that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against her in-laws are unsupported by any evidence. No material infirmity has been found in the order of learned trial Court accepting the negative Final Report submitted by the investigating agency.

5. Having gone through the impugned orders, this Court prima facie finds that the same have been passed after due application of mind. The impugned orders are speaking orders with reasoned findings. While exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned orders by re- appreciating evidences like appellate Court. Thus, no case for quashing the impugned orders dated 08.06.2018 and 25.10.2024 is made out.