HARI DAS ADHIKARY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application has been preferred challenging the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 93/2012 arising out of Moyna Police Station Case No. 7/2012 dated January 23, 2012 under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.

(2.) The petitioners before this Court are Hari Das Adhikary, Nakul Dasadhikari, Purnima Dasadhikari, Ahalya Dasadhikari, Rashbihari Das Adhikary and Bindubasini Dasadhikary, who are the husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, younger brother-in-law and sister- in-law respectively of the opposite party No. 2 defacto complainant of the instant case. The petitioners approached this Court at the stage when the Investigating Agency on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections and it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the next date has been fixed for consideration of charge before the Learned Trial Court.

(3.) The allegations made in the First Information Report is to the effect that the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Sulata Das Adhikary was married to the petitioner no. 1 on 23.06.2010 according to Hindu rites and customs and as per demand of the inmates of the matrimonial home, cash money along with articles were gifted in the form of dowry. However, the complainant was tortured from the very next day of her marriage and after 10 days of marriage the petitioner No. 1 left for his working place and stopped any communication with her. The complainant further alleged that after her husband left, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and grandmother-in-law on different pretext inflicted mental torture upon her and prevented her from keeping in touch with her parental home. There was further demand for dowry to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00 and the complainant's father being unable to meet such demand resulted in the complainant being physically tortured by the petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 6. Her husband also threatened her and when she became unwell, her brother-in-law took away her mobile phone and as such she was unable to communicate with her parents and when she was able to establish contact with her parents, she was prevented from going to her paternal home. When her father went to her matrimonial home for bringing her, he was tied with a rope. However, at the instance of the neighbours, her father could escape from such harassment. After the said incident on 29.11.2010 her mother-in- law and sister-in-law drove her out of the house. Subsequently, her husband refused to accept and take her back to her matrimonial home. The complainant further states that a mediation was held on or about 28.03.2011. However, the inmates of her matrimonial home refused to accept any terms and her husband asked her to forget regarding the marriage. Lastly, when she informed the incident to the police station on 26.07.2011, her father-in-law expressed his intention that he would make his son understand and take back the complainant so that they can start their life. However, the petitioner No. 2 could not keep his promise. The complainant, therefore, alleged that the Police Authorities should take action against the physical and mental torture being inflicted upon her.