Rubul Baruah vs Ruptrishna Dutta

This is an application under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside and quashing of the complaint proceeding

being C. R. Case No.18/2018 under Section 403/406 IPC pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jorhat and the impugned

orders, dated 12.02.2018 and 12.03.2018 passed therein.

The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that he is working as a Senior Manager (F & S), Numaligarh Refinery (NRL), Golaghat and he got

married to the respondent on 11.03.2012 socially at Golaghat and the Court marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was held in the office of

Marriage Officer, Tinsukia, on 26.12.2012. After marriage, both the parties were peacefully continuing their conjugal life residing in the official quarter

of the petitioner. However, due to some domestic differences, a divorce suit under Section 27 (1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was instituted

for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, being Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 34/2015 in the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat, Assam.

During the pendency of the said divorce proceeding, the respondent issued a legal notice, through her Advocate, to the petitioner, on 19.07.2017, for

handing over of her articles enclosing a list of 26 nos. of items. In the meantime, their marriage stood dissolved by a decree of divorce, dated

25.07.2017, passed in the said divorce proceeding and the legal notice was replied, thereafter, on 27.07.2017, through his lawyer, dated 04.08.2017,

whereby he consented to hand over the articles to respondent as per her convenience and bearing herself the cost of transportation, but there was no

response from the respondent’s end. After, the decree of divorce, the respondent has prepared appeal vide MAT Appeal No. 01/2018 along with

I.A. (Civil) No. 115/2018 before this Court, which is now pending. On the other hand, the respondent filed complaint case No. 18/2018 under Section

403/406 IPC in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jorhat on 12.02.2018 against the petitioner, which was made over to the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jorhat for disposal and after inquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. issued summons to the accused petitioner vide

order, dated 12.03.2018. Hence, the instant petition praying as stated above.

Mr. S. K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent stood dissolved by a

decree of divorce and as stated in the reply to the notice, dated 04.08.2017, the respondent may take back her furniture/accessories/kitcheneries as

per her convenience, but the petitioner is not inclined to bear the cost of transportation or take any responsibility of damage, during packing/

transportation etc.

Ms. Panchali Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent has not denied the above plea of offer made by the petitioner, but further submits

that as the stridhan articles of the petitioner are still lying at the house of the petitioner, the complaint case may not be quashed as prayed by the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for both the sides submit that the basic issue involved in the proceeding is the question of bearing of cost of transportation of the

articles and other incidental expenditures related thereto.

Upon hearing the learned counsel of both the sides and consideration of the contentions made in the petition as well as copy of the documents

appended thereto, it appears that there is no denial of the fact of entrustment to or dominion by the petitioner over the ‘stridhan’ of the

respondent, with whom the ownership lies. In this case, what it crystallizes is that the petitioner has not refused to return the ‘stridhan’ of the

respondent, but a mutual settlement could not be reached uptil now regarding as to who will bear the cost of transportation and incidental expenditures,

while so returning the articles to the respondent, who is the petitioner’s divorced wife.

In the backdrop of the facts in hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that quashing of the complaint proceeding being C. R. Case No. 18/2018

of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jorhat and the impugned orders, dated 12.02.2018 and 12.03.2018 cannot be ordered.

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. However, the parties are hereby given liberty to approach the District Mediation Centre, Jorhat to avail

the facility of mediation for resolution of their disputes relating to transportation and other incidental costs for effective delivery of the stridhan as

stated above. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.