Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 filed by the accused petitioners for quashing of proceedings in G.R. Case No. 242 of 2010 pending before the Learned A.C.J.M. Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas, arising out of Bidhannagar (South) Police Station Case No. 57 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, including orders dated 18.06.2010 and 11.11.2010.
(2.) IN the said application, the petitioners have ventilated their grievances contending inter alia that the Petitioner No. 1 was the mother -in -law and the Petitioner No. 2 was the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2. The Petitioner No. 1 has been suffering from various ailments associated with geriatric disease. The Petitioner No. 2 is a resident of United States of America and for the purpose of his service he has been residing there. He has admitted that his marriage was held with the Opposite Party No. 2 on 06.05.2007 under the Special Marriage Act. At the relevant point of time he himself and his wife (Opposite Party No. 2) were gainfully employed into two different multi -national companies. Initially they resided at Hyderabad and thereafter he was shifted to United State of America for his job. While he was residing at America with the Opposite Party No. 2, he had experienced that his wife picked up quarrels with him at a regular interval and lastly the Opposite Party No. 2 returned to India in February 2009. After returning from United States of America, the Opposite Party No. 2 went to her paternal house and never kept any contact with him. The Petitioner No. 1 had no control over the marital life of the Petitioner No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 at any point of time. As a couple they resided at United States of America for a very short period. On 6th June, 2009 the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a divorce suit against the present Petitioner No. 2 before the Learned District Judge at Barasat, North 24 Parganas being Matrimonial Suit No. 937 of 2009 which was transferred to the Court of Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, at Barasat and renumbered as Mat Suit No. 90 of 2009 but finally the suit was renumbered as Mat Suit No. 20 of 2010 and it was heard by the Learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, at Barasat, North 24 Parganas. The said suit was decreed finally in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2 on 30.07.2010. According to the petitioners on a bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint in the aforesaid case it will reveal that all the conflicts and disputes arose between the couple took place outside West Bengal and there was no cause of action in Bidhannagar. They further contended that after a few months from filing of the suit for divorce, the Opposite Party No. 2 with an ulterior motive caused harassment and humiliation to the petitioners by falsely implicating them in a case under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE main grievance against the Petitioner No. 1 was such that in spite of the fact that the petitioner No. 2 used to put torture upon the Opposite Party No. 2, the said Petitioner No. 1 (mother -in -law) never bothered about the agonies of the Opposite Party No. 2 rather she always lent support to her son. In the said written complaint she has categorically stated that before shifting to Hyderabad, the couple went for a pleasure trip at Sikkim where she was physically assaulted by her husband. While in United States of America, the Petitioner No. 2 used to torture her and at times it became extremely violent and she was kept confined in a room in order to prevent her from being in touch with her parents. However in one occasion she has managed to ring up the emergency number 911 and at this time the police of United States of America reached their apartment to apprehend her husband, but the Opposite Party No. 2 requested the police not to arrest her husband under an assumption that Petitioner No. 2 may change his mind. But as the act of violence continued for a long time she had made contact with one David and lodged FIR with the local police station and this time police had cautioned the husband Petitioner No. 2. Not only that, the de facto complainant took her husband to a marriage councillor but because of non -cooperation of Petitioner No. 2 said attempt failed. She was not given in any kind of financial assistance by her husband in cases of emergency and finally on 12.02.2009 she returned to India in order to save her life.;