JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. N Barman for the petitioner ‘Y’ who has filed this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S. for short) read with Section 438, 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S. for short) with prayer for quashing the P.R.C. Case No. 2076/2024 arising out of Dispur P.S Case No. 500/2024, registered under Section 498A/325/307/506/294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. for short) dated 24.05.2024, corresponding to G.R Case No. 3015/2024 and charge-sheet No. 445/2024 dated 04.07.2024. 2. Heard Mr. D.K Nath, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. An F.I.R was lodged by the respondent No. 2, ‘X’ on 24.05.2024 that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner and after 2 (two) months of her marriage, the petitioner and his family members, subjected the respondent No. 2, victim to cruelty to meet their illegal demand of dowry. She was subjected to both mental as well as physical harassment, but, she had to endure the cruelty to save her marital life. At times, the petitioner, after consuming alcohol, used to demand dowry and assault her to meet his demand of dowry. At present, she is suffering from partial deafness of her left ear and from problems relating to breathing. The petitioner even tried to strangulate her. 4. However, on 21.05.2024 at about 9:00PM, the petitioner, using abusive language, pushed her away and she fell down by the impact. He also pulled her hair and pushed her out of the room with threats of divorce. She also learnt about the philandering nature of her husband. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initially the F.I.R was registered under Section 498A/325/307/506/294 of the I.P.C, but, charge-sheet was laid under Section 498A of I.P.C. It is further submitted that to make out a case under Section 498A of I.P.C, the injury has to be of grave nature, whereas, in the instant case, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 498A of I.P.C after observing that the injuries were simple in nature on the basis of the medico legal report. It is thus submitted that this case under Section 498A I.P.C is not maintainable and is liable to be set-aside and quashed. 6. It is thus submitted that this case under Section 498A I.P.C is not maintainable and is liable to be set-aside and quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Digambar and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2024) 0 Supreme(SC) 1228, wherein it has been held and observed that : "17. Firstly, the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under : “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation For the purposes of this section "cruelty" means: (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 18. The ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The second part of this Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. In the present case, no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the second part are found.” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** “29. The second part of this Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. In the present case, no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the second part are found.” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** “29. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.” *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 33. “It would again, be apposite to refer to the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) wherein this Court has discussed the objective of Section 498-A of IPC and has also raised its concerns over the misuse of this Section in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed thus: “28. The inclusion-of-Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. “29. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. “29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case." 7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, wife has laid stress in argument that this is a case relating to a series of incidents which is clearly reflected in the F.I.R. The victim’s strength of endurance cannot be tested in this manner. It is already admitted that if the injuries are simple, no case under Section 498A IPC, but, should the victim wait for any instance when finally she will be sustaining grievous injuries which may be dangerous to her life. It is submitted that cruelty does not mean only grievous hurt, but, cruelty has to be read together as mental and physical harassment. Intense mental harassment is at par with grievous injuries. The victim was subjected to relentless cruelty continuously and the last straw that broke the camel’s back was the day when her husband assaulted her with such force that she slumped to the ground. Then, finally (on 21.05.2024), when the victim was assaulted by her husband, she was impelled to lodge the F.I.R on 25.05.2024. It is submitted that cruelty includes both mental and physical harassment and not only grievous injuries. Then, finally (on 21.05.2024), when the victim was assaulted by her husband, she was impelled to lodge the F.I.R on 25.05.2024. It is submitted that cruelty includes both mental and physical harassment and not only grievous injuries. At present, the petitioner is unable to hear properly with her left ear. The petitioner is an orphan and she has nowhere to go. The petitioner was brought up by her elder brother who has to look after his own family as well. The petitioner had to take shelter in her brother’s house as she feels insecure in her matrimonial home. 8. Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam laid stress in his argument that a prima facie case has been found against the petitioner and charge-sheet has been laid on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation. 9. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 355 that : where the allegations made in the F.I.R report or the complaint, even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in the entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then an F.I.R can be quashed. But, in the instant case, there are prima facie materials available against the petitioner and charge-sheet has been laid against him. 10. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that this issue can be raised at any time. The petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court, although, he has appeared before this Court to file the Revision Petition. Summonses have been issued against him. The petitioner can appear before the Trial Court and raise this issue and if, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner, there are no materials to proceed against him, he may be discharged of the offence. 11. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection and I have also scrutinized the Trial Court Records. I find force in the arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents. It is true that this is a case of continuous offence. At this juncture, it cannot be pre-empted that further proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court. I find force in the arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents. It is true that this is a case of continuous offence. At this juncture, it cannot be pre-empted that further proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the Court. This Court is also hesitant to get into the details of the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C at this stage. At this stage, this case cannot be considered to be a counter-blast to the threats of divorce or a false case as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband. 12. At this nascent stage, no malafide is discernable on the part of the victim ‘X’. The ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Digambar & Another (Supra) is not applicable to this case as it has been observed in the case of the Digambar & Another (Supra) that there were no allegations which would fulfill the requirement of the second part (demand of dowry). The F.I.R, in the instant case, discloses demand of dowry. 13. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that this is not a fit case, at this stage, to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner can raise the same issue at a later stage, at the stage of trial or at the stage of framing of charges. 14. The petition is dismissed, at this stage.