SIMA ROY Vs. MITHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the complaint which was filed by the respondents No.1 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 by striking down her name from the complainant filed under Sec. 494, 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 subsequently registered vide case number CR 72/2022 which pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Agartala, West Tripura pending till 6/3/2024.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the Respondent No. 1 being complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 200 for taking cognizance of an offence under Sec. 494, 114 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner went on bail. A case was registered vide number CR 72/2022 and is pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Agartala, West Tripura till date. The respondent no. 1 examined herself before the Ld. Trial Court u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. The respondent no. 1 thereafter at the stage of evidence, before charge, examined total four (4) witnesses as CWs. The petitioner filed an application for discharging her from case but her application was rejected by the Ld. Trial Court by order dtd. 15/06/2023 and said order was challenged by the petitioner vide case number Criminal Revision 11/2023 before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Agartala, West Tripura, which is pending till now. The petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the respondent No. 1 and she is making derogatory and abusive statements against the petitioner in various courts and before society about her character and personality, and curtailing her personal liberty by dragging her into litigation unnecessary, and humiliating her day by day. The respondent No. 1 is luring/hampering petitioner's dignity in the society for some false allegation and against her no evidence could be led by the respondent no. 1 in the evidence before charge before the Ld. Trial Court. The evidence is closed before the Ld. trial Court. In compelling circumstances to save Petitioner's glory and dignity being a helpless women, she has filed this case under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C before the this Court for quashing the complaint against her, by deleting or striking down her name from the complaint.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that before the learned Trial Court the respondent No.1 could not exhibit a single document which can be considered a valid evidence of marriage of the petitioner with the husband (i.e. the respondent no.2 herein). So, when the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner was earlier married and evidence led by the respondent No.1 before the learned Trial Court did not prove that any valid marriage ever contracted or performed between the petitioner and respondent No.2, in such circumstances dragging the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court for about two years is injustice to her and curtailing her personal liberty and the misuse of law by the respondent No.1 as such the complainant should be quashed against the petitioner by striking off her name from the complaint.