( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 182 of the Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioners is aimed at quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 140 of 2003 arising out of Raghunathganj P. S. Case No. 32 dated 10. 3. 2003 under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code (in short the i. P. O.) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, jangipur, Murshidabad. ( 2 ) MR. Mrinal Kanti Biswas, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that Ragunathganj P. S. Case No. 32 dated 10. 3. 2003 was registered on the basis of written complaint/f. I. R. submitted by O. P. No. 1 Malina Das, the wife of petitioner No. 1. The F. I. R. did not bear signature of the informant and a different person has written her name in the F. I. R. as the informant and the handwriting clearly indicates that the person who scribed F. I. R. also signed the name of informant. The F. I. R. which was the foundation of registration of the aforesaid Raghunathganj P. S. Case accordingly was not in accordance with law as in matrimonial matters, the wife or her parents or her relatives only can lodge written complaint or F. I. R. and any third party has no authority to lodge F. I. R. in matrimonial disputes, particularly concerning offence under section 498a of the I. P. C. ( 3 ) MR. Biswas further submitted that the wife was in the habit of leaving matrimonial home and her parents house is very near to her husband's house. There was a Mat. Suit also filed by the husband praying for divorce and the said suit ended in compromise. The contents of the F. I. R. if it is read on the whole without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it would reveal that the F. I. R. fails to establish prima facie elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. or any cognizable offence. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 1631 of the Cr. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 1631 of the Cr. P. C. during investigation also fails to reveal prima face elements of offence under Suction 498a of the I. P. C. Mere bald allegations of physical and mental torture on O. P. No. 1 is not sufficient to attract elements of 498a of the I. P. C. Taking of cognizance by the learned magistrate over such F. I. R. and charge-sheet was bad in law and cognizance was taken mechanically without applying judicial mind. The proceeding is absolutely nullity as the F. I. R. was not signed by the de-facto complainant and it strikes at the very root or foundation of the prosecution case. This is a fit case where this Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash the criminal proceeding. In support of his contention mr. Biswas placed reliance on some of the decisions namely, (Kaliyaperumal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu), reported in AIR 2003 SC 3828 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 1016, (R. G. Brealey v. The State of West Bengal), reported in (1996)2 cal HN page 362 and (B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana), reported in AIR 2003 sc 1386 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 498. ( 4 ) MR. Kasam Ali Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the state submitted that it is not necessary that the F. I. R. must contain the signature of the de-facto complainant. The law is well settled that even telephonic message may be treated as F. I. R. , and telephonic message does not contain signature of the person who gave the information. F. I. R. merely sets the law in motion, and at the time of registration of F. I. R. the only requirement is disclosure of cognizable offence in the information. The trial Court on consideration of evidence would consider whether the F. I. R. became invalid for not having the signature of the de facto complainant, and would also consider, whether thereby, the trial became illegality or that the accused suffered prejudice. ( 5 ) MR. Ahmed next contended that the F. I. R. contains sufficient elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. ( 5 ) MR. Ahmed next contended that the F. I. R. contains sufficient elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. The statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. and the materials collected during investigation makes out prime facie case under Section 498a of the i. P. C. sufficient for going to the trial. It is clear from the materials on record that the de facto complainant/ wife tried her best to reconcile with her husband for her children but the husband did not change his attitude and behaviour and continued torture on the wife. There are sufficient materials for proceeding with the trial and the revisional application accordingly requires dismissal. ( 6 ) BEFORE entering into the merit of the case it would be profitable to mention in short, the facts disclosed in the F. I. R. and that would help this court to consider whether in this case, this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash the F. I. R. and charge-sheet. In the F. I. R. it was alleged that the informant was married with Nabin Chandra das on 9. 3. 1995 and she was subjected to torture both physically and mentally in her matrimonial home three years after the marriage. She was often forced to go to her father's house leaving the matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock one son and a daughter were born to her. Being unable to bear the torture of her husband and other in-laws, she was residing in her father's house for the last three months before lodging of F. I. R. Accordingly the written complaint / f. I. R. was submitted before the Officer-in-charge, Raghunathganj P. S. fortaking necessary action. ( 7 ) IT is clear that the F. I. R. does not bear the signature of the de facto complainant and the handwriting in the body of the F. I. R. prima facie establishes that the scribe of the F. I. R. wrote out the name of the informant towards end of the F. I. R. According to provisions of sub-section 198a of the Cr. P. C. no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 498a of the i. P. C. except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father's or mother's, brother, sister or by her lather's or mother's brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. In this matter the F. I. R. was scribed by one Jagannath das and there is nothing to show that he had any blood relation with the informant. It is true that police submitted report after investigation but, the very foundation was defective as the written complaint/f. I. R. was not lodged by the aggrieved wife or her parents or blood relations. It was not a case where telephonic message was registered as F. I. R. and accordingly the submission of Mr. Ahmed cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) AFTER going through the contents of the F. I. R. I find that F. I. R. does not contain prima facie elements of, offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C difference of opinion between the husband and wife, misunderstanding between them for sometime are natural course of action in a matrimonial home and such matters do not constitute elements of offence under Section 498a of the i. P. C. The F. I. R. fails to show that there was any demand for dowry or torture on the de-facto complainant demanding dowry. There is nothing to show that the conduct of the husband and other in-laws was of such nature which was likely to drive the ate facto complainant to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury or danger to her life or limb or health. There is also nothing to show that the ate facto complainant was subjected to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. There is also nothing to show that the ate facto complainant was subjected to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The allegation that often she was compelled to go to her father's house or that there was threat to leave the matrimonial home and to go for her parent's house cannot be regarded as prima facie materials to constitute elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. ( 9 ) THE statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the cr. P. C. also fails to establish prima facie elements of cognizable offence or offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. Merely bald statements that the de-facto complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture are not sufficient to attract elements of 498a of the I. P. C. The statement of the witnesses fails to reveal that there was physical and mental torture on the wife demanding dowry or that she was assaulted to such an extent which caused threat to her limb or health or caused grievous injury to her health. Mere bald allegation that there was torture on her is not sufficient to attract elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in air 1992 SC 604 laid down certain guidelines where a High court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash a F. I. R. or charge sheet as well as criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court and down the guidelines that where the allegations made in the F. I. R. , even if, they are taken a their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and where the allegations in the F. I. R. and other materials accompanying the F. I. R. did not disclose a cognizable offence ; where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the f. I. R. or the proceeding may be quashed. ( 11 ) CONSIDERATION of these guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court clearly reveals that in the present matter neither in the F. I. R. nor in the statement of the witnesses or other materials collected during investigation, elements of offence under Section 498a of the I. P. C. were disclosed. Accordingly this is a fit case where this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. Continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law. The criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No. 140 of 2003 arising out of Raghunathganj P. S. Case No. 32 dated 10. 3. 2003 now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Jangipur is hereby quashed. ( 12 ) CRIMINAL Department is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Jangipur for information and taking necessary action.