SOUTIK DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the present petitioners for quashing of the proceeding being G.R case no. 3176 of 2021, arising out of new town Police Station case number 226 of 2020, dated November 23, 2020, under Sec. 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Learned Second Judicial Magistrate at Barasat.

(2.) The petitioner no. 1 and the Opposite Party no. 2 are legally married husband and wife and their marriage was solemn on May 6, 2013 as per Hindu rites and customs and it was registered at Chennai on May 20, 2013 as per provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the year 2015, the petitioner number one noticed that his wife is involved with one Sujoy naik , a resident of the same society in Bangalore and this fact was intimated to the wife of such person as well as the parents of the Opposite Party no.2 by the petitioner number one. The pity parents of the Opposite Party no. 2 assured that the petitioner no. 1 will be counsel to stop such type of activities.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that despite facing such problem and adjusted against all odd situations, on the assurance given by his wife the matrimonial tie remained and they were also hello blessed with a male child born on June 7, 2017 at Bangalore. Prior to birth of the child both the parties while staying at Singapore for the purpose of their job. In the month of November 2018, both the parties shifted to Sydney in Australia and started residing there and Opposite Party no. 2 changed her employment and joined the C.N.H industrial at Sydney and during that period again, she involved with one of her colleague, namely Prashant Alexander and maintained an extramarital relation with him. In the month of August 2019, it was found that the Opposite Party no. 2 has no affection, love, and sympathy towards her minor son, and the minor was then admitted to eye hospital in Australia for the purpose of an surgery, the mother refuse to meet her child to the hospital. After that opposite party number two started a mental as well as physical torture regularly upon the petitioner no. 1 by showing household articles and utensils towards the petitioner no.1 without any reason and also threatened him on several times to destroy his career as the petitioner number one detected such extramarital affairs. Being unable to bear the torture upon petitioner no. 1 by the Opposite Party no. 2, he decided to return to India with their minor son, but Opposite Party no. 2 did not agree to accompany them up to the residence of the petitioner no. 2 at Siliguri and accordingly on reaching airport at Dum Dum opposite party number two went to the residence of her father with the minor son when petitioner no.1 came back to his father house at Siliguri. Having no other alternative, the petitioner number one constraint to file a matrimonial suit on October 5, 2020 being suit no. 291(10) of 2020, under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of the Additional District judge FastTrack Court at Siliguri against the Opposite Party no. 2 for dissolution of marriage which was later on transferred to the Court of Learned Additional District Judge III, Barasat 24 Parganas North at the instance of the Opposite Party no. 2 and pending for final adjudication. After the Opposite Party no. 2 came to know about the state fact of filing matrimonial suit on October 31, 2020 when she received the summons of the Saint matrimonial suit, as a counter blast lodged a complaint before the Newtown Police Station on November 23, 2020 under Sec. 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sec. 3 and four of the dowry Prohibition act 1961 against the present petitioners with false and concocted allegations, and with ulterior motive. In courts of investigation, the present petitioner after receiving information of initiation of criminal case surrendered before the Court of learner, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Barasat and were enlarged on bail. It is the case of the petitioners that on mere perusal of the complaint filed by the opposite party number two would show that no substantial allegation of dowry has been made out in the complaint, and therefore the complaint is not tenable in the eye of law. On completion of the said investigation, the police authorities submitted the charge-sheet on April 27, 2021 under the aforesaid provisions and the statement recorded by the investigating officer under sec. 161 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, as well as from the charge-sheet, it would be evident that the allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely omnibus in nature and do not construe any offence at all. The Opposite Party no. 2 has included the penance of the petitioner number one as accused person number two and three when the fact remains, they are living separately at a remote distance, having no nexus with the place of residence. Accordingly filed this revision application for quashing of the proceedings as if it is allowed to be continued. It would be - gross abuse of the process of law.