JYOTI BENOD BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under sections 401, 482 & 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code), 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being Case No. C-764/01 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore under sections 498A, 406 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).

(2.) The aforesaid case was started on the basis of complaint lodged by opposite party No. 2 as complainant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at Alipore. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married with petitioner No. 1 according to their Hindu rites and customs on 26.11.96. After marriage she was taken to her matrimonial home and on 28.11.96, on the day of 'fulsajya' the petitioner No. 1 consumed full bottle of liquor in her presence. Next day, all the petitioners and others hurled insulting comments relating to marriage gifts and the petitioners and others demanded further dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and gold jewelleries of 20 tollas. Sometimes thereafter at the instance of the petitioners a meeting was called for and there the petitioners and others asked her to give an undertaking in writing on non-judicial stamp paper stating therein that nobody would be responsible for her death and that all the ornaments received by her in the marriage would remain in custody of mother-in-law. Towards end of July in 1997 she was taken to Bhubaneswar, the working place of petitioner No. 1 and, there also, she was subjected to both physical and mental torture by her husband, the petitioner No. 1. On account of 'Bhatri Dwitiya' on 2.11.97 she expressed her desire to go to her father's house when the petitioners refused to allow her to go to her father's house. Ultimately, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 left her near railway station of her father's house and she went to her father's house. At evening on the same day the petitioner No. 2, the father-in-law over telephone told her uncle not to send her to their house. Her father and uncle then sent her back to her matrimonial home but, they were insulted by the petitioners with filthy languages. She was later on again taken to Bhubaneswar, the working place of her husband and in April, 1998 her father-in-law and mother-in-law brought her back to her matrimonial home at Calcutta. In the meantime she became pregnant and even during stage of pregnancy she was not spared from torture and cruelty and on 29.1.99 she gave birth to a female child but, even after birth of child she was subjected to torture. On 12th August, 1999 in spite of her illness while she was cooking, she was assaulted by her father-in-law and when she tried to contact with her father over telephone, the petitioner No. 4 slapped her. Thereafter, her husband took her to a rented flat at Lake Road on 13.10.99 but taking her to the rented flat her husband tortured her in different manners and on 12.12.99 tried to kill her by throttling. On 29.1.2000 after celebrating first birth anniversary of their female child her husband took away her to her parental house and kept her there. In spite of repeated requests her husband and other in-laws did not take back her and demanded the dowry as usual. On 19.2.2000 she along with her parents went to her matrimonial home and demanded back the articles but the accused persons, i.e. the petitioners refused to return the said articles including stridhan properties. On 29.1.01 on the day of Saraswati Puja she was taken to her matrimonial home and after some talks and taking a photograph she was asked to leave matrimonial home and in spite of her and her father's request she was not allowed to stay in matrimonial home. Lastly, on 11.2.01 she went to her matrimonial home at Kalighat with her parents and other relatives and requested them to return the articles given in marriage and her stridhan properties but the accused persons drove them out from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lodged the complaint against seven persons in all and, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance and examining her and other witnesses issued process against the present petitioners. It appears that the petitioners appeared before the Court below and the case is now pending at the stage of evidence before charge. During such stage the petitioners have moved this Court in this revisional application for quashing the criminal proceeding.

(3.) Mr. Himangshu De, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the brother-in-law being husband of sister of petitioner No. 1. The opposite party as complainant has filed the complaint case after receiving summons in matrimonial suit. The learned Magistrate at the time of issuing process did not issue process against all the accused persons arrayed as accused in the petition of complaint. The petitioner No. 2, the father-in-law, is an old person of about 68 years in age and he is suffering from rheumatic arthritis, anaemia, Type-n DM and other ailments. Petitioner No. 3, the mother-in-law is aged about 57 years and is also suffering from various ailments. The complainant left her matrimonial home on 30.1.2000 and thereafter she did not come back to her matrimonial home. In the matrimonial suit there was reconciliation and the complainant returned back to matrimonial home on 14.7.97. Thereafter, the child was born on 29.1.99. Between reconciliation and birth of the daughter there was no allegation of torture against the petitioners. From the petition of complaint and from the statement of witnesses examined under section 200 of the Code no case has been made out against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4.