DIPAK SAHA RAY,J. - (1.) THE present case arises out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceeding of Baguihati Police Station Case No. 213 dated 28.5.2010 under Section 497/498/506/420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to G.R Case No. 2152 of 2010 which is pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: The Opposite Party No. 2 as informant filed a written complaint with the Officer-inCharge of Baguihati Police Station alleging inter alia therein that the accused/petitioner herein took Rs. 8,000/- and gold etc. in different dates from his wife on the plea that he would provide her a Government job, but no such job was provided to her; on the other hand in his (defacto-complainant) absence, the accused (petitioner herein) forced his wife to have inter course with him and ultimately he (the accused) enticed his wife away from his house. It is also alleged in the said written complaint that the Accused/Petitioner herein threatened him over telephone with dire consequences. On the basis of the said F.I.R, Baguihati Police Station Case No. 213 of 2010 dated 28.05.2010 was started. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet against the Accused/Petitioner herein under Section 497/498/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code on 31.07.2010.
(2.) IT is case of the petitioner herein that Opposite Party No. 2/defacto-complanant filed the case with an ulterior motive to harass him. The petitioner has alleged that the charge sheet does not constitute any of the offences under Section 497/498/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the proceeding is required to be quashed. By pointing out the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the statement of the victim lady does not disclose that the petitioner herein enticed her away from the house of the defactocomplainant; on the other hand the said statement goes to show that the wife of the defacto-complainant willfully left her husband 's house. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the said statement regarded under Section 164 Cr.P.C also does not go to show that the petitioner committed any offence under Section 420 or under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioner that since the F.I.R does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and since other Sections i.e., Sections 506/497/498 of the Indian Penal Code are non cognizable offences, the Court cannot take cognizance of the said offences and that as per the provision of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter-XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In view of the above provision of law, it is submitted on the behalf of the petitioner, the proceeding in question is required to be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the State/Opposite Party No. 1 has also submitted that the F.I.R. dose not disclose any offence under Section 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code and as per the provision of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 497/498 of the Indian Penal Code. Now after taking into consideration all relevant facts and materials and giving due regard to the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the following three points are required to be considered (i) whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner/Accused person; (ii) whether there is an abuse of process of the Court; and (iii) whether ends of justice demands quashing of the proceeding. In the instant case there is no controversy that the wife of the defactocomplainant/Opposite Party No. 2 eloped from her house with Accused/Petitioner herein and lived with him in a separate place. There does not appear to be any controversy that after completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the present petitioner/accused person. The controversy mainly relates to the question as to (i) whether the F.I.R. of this case has been filed against the accused person mala fide and with ulterior motive; (ii) whether the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose the commission of offences as alleged in the F.I.R. and (iii) whether the charge sheet prima facie constitute the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. In the instant case after investigation charge sheet has been submitted meaning thereby that a prima facie case has been made out against the present accused person. It is the settled principle of law that as per Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure meticulous analysis of the case before trial to find out whether the case would end in acquittal or conviction is not proper. In the F.I.R it has been alleged that the accused induced the wife of the defactocomplainant to pay Rs. 8,000/- and also gold etc. on the assurance that he would provide her a Government job. The F.I.R. further discloses that the accused had threatened the defacto-complainant over telephone with dire consequences. It is also the case of the defacto-complainant that Accused/Petitioner herein enticed his wife away from his house and also forced her to have intercourse with him. So, it appears that the F.I.R discloses some offences one of which is cognizable offence. Accordingly the provision of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of taking cognizance by the Court in connection with the offence punishable under chapter-XX of the Indian Penal Code, is not applicable in this case. It is settled principle of law that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and also in the rarest of the rare cases. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since charge sheet prima facie constitutes offence, the allegation made therein will have to be taken on the face value. Having regard to the facts circumstances and materials on record I find no merit in the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which accordingly must be dismissed. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails C.R.R No. 1552 of 2012 is dismissed. There is no order as to the costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for information and necessary action. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.;