JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceeding of CR Case No. 360/96 under Section 354/506 of the IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Nalbari as well as orders passed therein. This Court vide order dated 5.6.1997 admitted the revision petition and had stayed further proceedings of other aforementioned complaint case.
2. I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Bhomik, for the petitioner. None appears for the opp. party. The ordersheet discloses that after Rule was issued, notice was duly addressed to the opp. party. Office note indicates that notice was served on the opp. party. In spite of the above, none has entered appearance on her behalf.
3. The factual background, in short, leading to the filing of the case has to beset out to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner at the time of approaching this court was serving as Executive Engineer, PWD(R&D) in the office of the Chief Engineer (Roads), Assam, Chandmari, Gauhati-3. Before that, he was posted as the Executive Engineer, PWD (Building Division), Nalbari from 8.9.1992 to 26.6.1996. He was transferred to Gauhati on 27.6.1996. The opp. party was a contractor under the Nalbari, (Building Division), P.W.D. On 20.8,1996 a complaint was lodged by her in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari which was registered as Case No. 360C/96. It was alleged therein that on 24.10.1995 the complainant was called to his (petitioner) residence with regard to the payment of her bills. When she reached the residence of the petitioner, the latter asked her to pay a sum of Rs. 1000 as gratification to clear her bills. It was alleged that the amount was paid, whereafter the petitioner tried to outrage her modesty. He threatened her not to disclose the matter or otherwise her due bill amount would not be released. It is noticeable that though the date of occurrence was on 24.10.1995, the complaint was filed on 20.8.1996. The complaint, however, disclosed that, the husband of the complainant, meanwhile had died. On the same date, she was examined by the court in which she, inter alia, stated that on being called by the petitioner she paid Rs. 1000 on 28.10.1995 at the Nalbari Inspection Bungalow. Thereafter the petitioner called her to his residence saying that he would issue a cheque there. Instead of delivering any cheque to her, the petitioner pulled her and misbehaved with her. She stated that while she was coming out from the residence she saw one Tarini Seal at the doorway. Another witness, Ashok Das was examined on the very same day. The learned trial court thereafter on 16.9.1996 issued process under Section 354/506 of the IPC.
4. While the matter was pending before the learned trial court, the opp. party/complainant on 30.9.1996 submitted an application before it stating that the allegations made against the petitioner were all false and that she was forced to file the case at the instance of ‘vicious circle’. In the said application the opp. party prayed that the proceeding be dropped as she was forced to falsely implicate the petitioner who was a fatherly figure. Though notice was issued to her, on 30.9.1996, she was absent on that date. The records reveal that another application was filed on 21.11.1996 wherein she expressed her desire not to proceed with the case, though the complaint was made by her. The learned trial court by order dated 30.12.1996 directed that the case be conducted on behalf of the opp. party/ complainant by an amicus curiae. It was at this stage, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court.
5. In the revision petition, while denying the allegations made, it is categorically stated that the filing of the complaint petition was at the instance of persons inimically disposed towards the petitioner, more particularly, Shri Nibaran Kalita and Dilip Talukdar, who were contractors of Nalbari and were functioning as such during the relevant period when the petitioner was posted therein. The petitioner has furnished detailed particulars of the case filed by the petitioner against Shri Nibaran Kalita in connection with trespass and assault on him for which police case had been registered. According to the petitioner, the opp. party/complainant was set up by Shri Nibaran Kalita to unnecessarily malign him.
6. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel argued that on a bare reading of the complaint and the initial deposition, it would be evidently clear that the allegations are wholly baseless and mala fide and were made only to harass and intimidate the petitioner and, therefore, it is a fit case to quash the impugned proceeding. According to him the opp. party/ complainant having realised the falsity of the allegations, filed the application for withdrawing the same and if the proceeding is allowed to continue, it would be an absence of the process of the court. He contended that the background as narrated in the revision petition is also relevant for the purpose of considering the maintainability of the criminal proceeding imposed in the revision petition.
7. Admittedly, the date and place of the alleged occurrence, as mentioned in the complaint petition and in the initial deposition, are distinctly different. Further, there is no mention of the presence of Tarini Seal at the place of occurrence in the complaint petition. He was also not examined by the opp. party/complainant before the issuance of the process against the petitioner. Instead, one Ashok Das was examined who was not named in the complaint petition or in the list of witnesses referred to therein. The application filed by the opp. party/complainant to withdraw the case cannot be lightly brushed aside. She stated therein that she had lodged the complaint against the petitioner on false allegations and in the second application filed by her also she indicated her mind not to proceed with the proceeding any further. All these facts and circumstances taken together lead to the reasonable conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint were not correct. In any view of the matter, contradiction with regard to the date and time of the occurrence, as can be gathered from the complaint petition or initial deposition, in my view, cuts at the root of the complainant’s case. Coupled with this is the other circumstance that the complainant/opp. party had filed applications before the learned trial court to withdraw the case. The factual background, as narrated in the revision petition, also cannot be overlooked. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the continuance of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, it is a fit case for interference under Section 482 CrPC.
8. In the light of the above, CR case 360C/96 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Nalbari and the orders passed therein are hereby set aside and quashed. No costs.