SOURABH KUMAR BASU Vs. SUKANYA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPON a complaint of the O. P. No. 2 lodged against the present petitioners alleging offences under Section 498a/406/506 of the IPC which was registered as Memari P. S. Case No. 43 of 2008 dated 21st of February, 2008 the police in course of investigation seized on 02-03-2008 certain articles from the possession of the petitioner no. 1 which was allegedly the stridhan articles of the opposite party no. 2 and upon such seizure said articles which are 21 in number was kept in the jimma of the said opposite party no. 2 by the order of the learned Magistrate on 30th of April, 2008. The petitioner no. 2 who is the father with the petitioner no. 1 and the husband of the petitioner no. 3 made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for return of some of the seized articles. The learned Magistrate negated the prayer and ordered for keeping all the articles in the jimma of the complainant-opposite party no. 2. The order dated 30th of April, 2008 was challenged before the Court of Sessions in Criminal Motion No. 64 of 2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 26th of September, 2008 rejected the motion, hence the revisional application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) MR. Abhisekh Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is not that the petitioners pray for possession of all the seized articles but for return of a cot, dressing table, another table, dining table and bell metalled and brass metalled utensils which were dedicated to the ancient family deity.

(3.) SEIZURE list dated 2nd March, 2008 shows seizure of wooden box cot with box set, dining table with four wooden chairs and a good number of brass metalled utensils. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 2 raises objection to the prayer, saying that there are documents to show that all the utensils, almirah, cot etc. were purchased by the father of the opposite party no. 2 so as to present in the marriage to her daughter on 30th May, 2005 and petitioners have not produced any document to show that the articles or some of them belonged to them. Special emphasis has been given by the petitioner's learned advocate for return of those utensils which were meant for the deities with the submission that heritage and tradition of the temple demands that utensils for the deities at least should be returned. The difficulty is that the petitioner no. 2 in his affidavit before the learned CJM, Burdwan did not specify, particularize and quantify the bell metalled and brass metalled utensils. In course of hearing a suggestion came out from the learned advocates for the parties that if the petitioner can specify by physical inspection in presence of the opposite party no. 2 any such bell metalled and/or brass metalled utensils which is used for worship of the deity then the learned Magistrate may consider the same only upon such specification and that too upon hearing the parties. With respect to the dressing table and dining table Mr. Sinha produced before the Court a cash memo dated 24th of October, 2004 which stood in the name of the petitioner no. 2, while the opposite party no. 2 also produced cash memos showing purchase of box cot and other furniture. In the circumstance, the application is disposed of with the direction to the learned CJM, Burdwan to ask the petitioners to identify the utensils said to be belonging to the deities and the furniture as claimed by them and then confine and restrict the prayer for return of only those utensils and furniture upon identification by the petitioners in presence of the opposite party no. 2 and decide the prayer for return in accordance with law upon contested hearing preferably within a month.