BIDHAN CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this criminal revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas, by which learned Magistrate refused to discharge the petitioners and framed charge against the petitioners and the co -accused persons under Sections 498A/323/506/34/406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) IT appears from the materials on record that the petitioners are the parents -in -law of the Opposite Party No.2 who happens to be the de -facto complainant of the criminal case. None appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 inspite of service of notice as reflected from the contents of the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) MR . Amarta Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/State has referred to the contents of First Information Report and the statement of witnesses like Lopamudra Kamilya, Ruprekha Ghosh, Lalit Mohan Pandit and Manas Kumar Das in order to advance the argument that these petitioners used to ill - treat the Opposite Party No.2 and used to incite the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 in order to inflict physical and mental torture on the Opposite Party No.2 and as such the present petitioners may be prosecuted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Mr. Ghosh, the petitioners cannot be discharged at this stage without recording of evidence by the trial court.