- (1.) This revisional application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceeding of Moyna Police Station Case No. 1 of 2005 dated 3.1.2005 under Sections 493/376/406 of the I.P.C. The case of the petitioner is that the O.P. No. 2 Smt. Puja Ray is now trying to establish that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, which the petitioner denies. When the said Puja Ray failed to establish her status of a wife of the petitioner, she filed a complaint ease before the learned C.J.M., Purba Midnapore under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and it has been registered as complaint Case No. 446 of 2004. It has been alleged in the said petition of complaint that after the alleged marriage, the complainant was subjected to torture both physically and mentally by her husband and in-laws. This petition of complaint was filed on 12.10.2004. On the same day she filed a petition before the said Court praying for maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Inspite of filing of those two cases against the petitioner, the O.P. No. 2/complainant filed another petition of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapore on 13.12.2004 and the learned Magistrate was pleased to send the same under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the PS. for starting a police case. On the basis of the said order, Moyna Police Station Case No. 1 of 2005 dated 3.1.2005 under Sections 493/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code was started. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the continuation of the said police case, the petitioner has filed this revisional application praying for quashing of the said proceeding, as according to the petitioner, continuance of the said case will be an abuse of the process of the Court.
(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for all the sides. It is the admitted position that the O.P. No. 2 Smt. Puja Ray filed a criminal case under Section 498A, I.P.C. against the petitioner and others on 12.10.2004. On the same day, she has also filed a petition before the same Magistrate under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner. Of course the petitioner has denied the relationship of husband and wife in between himself and Puja Ray but that question cannot be decided at this stage. Fact remains that the complainant has claimed herself to be the legally married wife and as according to her, the alleged husband and the in-laws tortured her, so she filed the case under Section 498A, I.P.C. against them. Simultaneously, alleging herself to be the wife of the petitioner, the O.P. No. 2 prayed for granting of maintenance in her favour. So from those two cases it appears that admittedly the O.P. No. 2 has claimed herself to be the legally married wife of the petitioner. But surprisingly on 13.12.2004 the same Puja Ray filed a petition before the learned Magistrate wherein she alleged commission of offence by the petitioner under Sections 493/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code and on the prayer of the petitioner said complaint was sent to the PS. under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for starting a police case. But it appears that the contention of the O. P. No. 2/complainant, as made in the petition dated 13.12.2004 is completely contradictory to the claim as made in her earlier petitions on the basis of which a case under Section 498A I.P.C. and under Section 125, Cr.P.C. were started. So it appears that initially the O.P. No. 2 claimed herself to be the legally married wife of the petitioner and subsequently on 13.12.2004 she has again claimed that the petitioner is guilty of committing rape on her. This contradictory stand cannot be allowed to be continued. There is reason to believe that in order to harass the petitioner in every possible way, the complainant has filed the subsequent petition dated 13.12,2004 on the basis of which the police case was started against the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt that if the claim of the complainant is accepted that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner, then her subsequent claim that she was raped against her will by the petitioner cannot stand in any way. To my mind, if the subsequent police case is allowed to be continued then it will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Law in this respect, has been well settled in the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. It has been clearly laid down in the said decision that where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge then it would be appropriate for the High Court to interfere into the matter and quash the proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. So far as the present case is concerned, it appears that the police case, as filed by the O.P. No. 2 suffers from inherent improbability and there is reason to believe that with some ulterior motive and for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner, said criminal case was instituted. In view of the fact that two earlier cases under Section 498A I.P.C. and under Section 125, Cr.P.C. have already been filed against the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2, I think that the continuation of the subsequent police case under Sections 493/376/406, I.P.C. will be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such in my considered opinion, it is a fit case where the.said police case should be quashed in exercise of the power given to this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
(3.) Considering all these things, the revisional application is allowed on contest. The proceeding of Moyna Police Station Case No. 1 of 2005 dated 3.1.2005 under Sections 493/376/406 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tamluk, is quashed. Send a copy of this order to the learned Court below at once.;