UTTAM DATTA, S/O LT PYARI MOHAN DATTA; MANJU DATTA (GUPTA), D/O LT PYARI MOHAN DATTA; BASANTI DATTA, D/O LT PYARI MOHAN DATTA; SADHAN DATTA, S/O LT PYARI MOHAN DATTA; SUMA DATTA, W/O UTTAM DATTA Vs. MITA DAS, D/O LT GOURA GOPAL DAS; STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the five accused persons under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the complaint being CR 03 of 2014 as being illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant was married to the respondent No.1 Uttam Datta. In the complaint, she has alleged that the marriage between the parties took place at Udaipur and thereafter, the petitioner and her husband resided there. Her allegation is that dowry was demanded and given. She has alleged that she was mentally and physically tortured and driven out of the house by the accused. There is also an allegation in the complaint that the respondent-husband has committed bigamy by marrying the accused No.5. Lastly, in the complaint it was stated that on 23-05-2014 at about 11/11-30 in the morning the accused persons abused and threatened the complainant. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and in the statement she has not made any allegation of bigamy but other allegations have been repeated. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:-

(3.) It is contended by Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the case against the petitioners is a totally false case. She alleges that there are so many contradictions in the complaint and the statement wherefrom it is apparent that the case is false and, therefore, cognizance of the matter should not have been taken and the complaint should be quashed. In the alternative, she submits that the Magistrate should in the facts of the present case have directed further investigation in the matter. Ms. Purkayastha has also urged that the procedure followed by the Magistrate in first recording the statement and then taking cognizance of the matter is totally illegal and, therefore, also the order needs to be set aside. She also urges that there is no mention whether the witnesses were present before the Court or not.