DEBABRATA BANERJEE Vs. PAPIYA BANERJEE (GANGULY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application has been preferred for quashing the proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 896 of 2003 under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Tamluk, Purba Midnapur. In spite of service none appeared for the opposite party, as such Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Ld. Advocate appeared for the State and advanced his submissions.

(2.) The opposite party No.1 being the complainant initiated the case against the present petitioner and three others. It is seen in the petition of complaint that the petitioner has been described as the elder brother-in-law of the complainant, or the elder brother of her husband (Subrata Banerjee).

(3.) The allegations made in the petition of complaint is that the opposite party No.1 namely Papiya Banerjee (Ganguly) was married to the accused No.1, Subrata Banerjee on or about 18-4-1987 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage the complainant went at her matrimonial home and started residing with her husband and other inmates of the family. In course of time a girl child was born out of the said wedlock and she was aged 10 years at the time when the complaint was lodged. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the accused persons on different plea and pretext used to inflict torture upon the complainant since the inception of marriage and often used to taunt her regarding the articles given by her parents at the time of marriage. The husband of the complainant often used to demand money and lastly he demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant's father. The other accused persons used to instigate her husband for demanding such cash money. The complainant also alleged that her husband misbehaved with her and insulted her parents and other family members. The complainant's husband often used to go at the office of the complainant's father and made unusual demand, further the complainant's husband used to inflict physical torture upon her on the issue of demand of money. The petitioner being the brother-in-law, according to the complainant, was residing at Baguihati and though he was not physically present, he used to advice complainant's husband and her husband used to act according to the advice of the petitioner. Finally, the complainant states that her husband did not take care of her or her child and on a false pretext took away her daughter and admitted her at a school in Calcutta. The complainant several times attempted to enter her matrimonial home but she was refused any entry and finally a divorce suit was filed against her. The complainant after repeated attempts had been successful to meet her daughter at her hostel. Finally the complainant alleges that her husband and the other accused persons have retained her stridhan properties and are unwilling to hand over the same.