ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who along with others have been charge -sheeted under section 498A/406 IPC and happened to be the sister -in -law of the de facto complainant has approached this court for quashing of the charge -sheet on the grounds as follows; a) The entire proceeding is bad, illegal and harassing. b) The de facto complainant made a misstatement as to the date of marriage although the actual date of marriage was 11.7.2008 but it was alleged that same was 12.7.2008. c) Although it is alleged in the wedlock a female -child was born but same is incorrect and a male -child was born. d) The statement made in the complaint is contradictory to the statement recorded under section 161 CrPC. e) It is claimed in the FIR that at the time of her marriage gold ornaments, other valuable articles and hard cash was given but there is no list of articles nor the amount of cash. f) According to the charge -sheet that police held a raid at the house of the accused persons but no stridhan articles was recovered and the person who claimed to be present at the time of the raid that he was the uncle of the de facto complainant but his title did not tally with that of her. g) Although no stridhan articles were recovered still police submitted charge -sheet for the offence under section 406 IPC for misappropriation of the stridhan articles. h) Police did not record statement of any family members of the de facto complainant. i) On whose statement charge -sheet has been submitted are all fake and they gave a parrot like statement. j) No sketch map was drawn and there was no topography. k) The witness Jhumi Chandra @ Minati Chandra is of questionable nature. l) The statement of Shankar Deb Ghosh, the landlord of the petitioner is not at all reliable who had been staying at Assam and never stayed at the place of occurrence.
(2.) IN addition to that it was contended an application for discharge was filed but the learned Magistrate rejected such application without considering the order passed by the High Court in connection with CRR 3836 of 2012. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the materials on record. Undoubtedly, the grounds on which the quashing of the charge - sheet has been sought for and the petitioner's prayer for discharge was confined all are essentially pure question of facts and thus neither the same can be the ground for quashing nor the trial court has committed any mistake by rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge. In CRR 3836 of 2012 Jaymallya Bagchi, J. dismissed the said application holding that no charge -sheet can be quashed on the ground the allegations are untrue and the investigation was conducted not in a fair manner. In such a situation subsequently, question of discharging the accused from the case or quashing of the charge -sheet on the self -same grounds is totally uncalled for. It is true that His Lordship granted liberty to the petitioner to canvass all the points taken in the appropriate stage of the proceeding. Certainly, when the court found that the point canvassed essentially question of facts and did not infringe on the jurisdiction of the court in taking cognizance the appropriate stage of proceeding referred must be the stage of trial. Two decisions have been relied form the side of the prosecution viz. Neelu Chopra and Another versus Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 and Chandralekha and Others versus State of Rajasthan and Another reported in I (2013) DMC 1 (SC) has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the present case there is specific allegation against the petitioner that she was one of the accuseds, who not being satisfied with the quality of dowry items, tortured the de facto complainant for further dowry and then she along with others drove her out from her matrimonial home. During investigation police recorded the statement of local persons who corroborated the allegations made in the FIR. This criminal revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
(3.) TRIAL court is directed to at once take up the matter for consideration of the question of charge, if not such stage has already been crossed. If finally charge is framed trial to be commenced at once and proceeded strictly in terms of section 309 CrPC and all endeavours must be made to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within 10 months from the date of its commencement. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below.;