(1) The revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash proceeding in connection with G. R. Case No. 846 of 2001, now pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, challenging the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioners herein including the order dated 12-12-2006, whereby and where under the learned Court below refused to discharge the petitioners who are arrayed as accused in connection with the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2) The main contention of the petitioners is that they are no way connected with the husband of the de facto complainant either by blood or by marriage and as such their implication in connection with an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in law.

(3) It is evident from the F. I. R. lodged by 0. P. No. 2 that in the month of February, 1995 she was given in marriage with accused Asok Shaw (non-petitioner in this application). During her stay, she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband and by the petitioners herein, mainly over demand of dowry.

(4) In the F. I. R. it is alleged that husband of the de facto complainant was the adopted brother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in this application. It may be pointed out in this context that of the five petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are mentioned in the F. 1. R. as relations of the husband of the de facto complainant by way of adoption of the husband of the de facto complainant as the brother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The other three petitioners namely Bulu Kar is the wife of petitioner No.2 while petitioner Tutu Kar is the daughter of the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, while petitioner Ruby Kar is another daughter of the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It is evident from the F. I. R. that several acts of alleged assault and torture committed by the petitioners herein have been mentioned in the F. I. R. lodged by O. P. No. 2.

(5) The question now arise is whether the petitioners herein even though, they are not connected with the husband of the O. P. either through blood or by marriage can at all be arrayed as accused persons in connection with the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(6) It is the contention of learned advocate for the petitioners that the question of husband of the O. P. No. 2 being the adopted brother of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be taken into consideration, in order to decide that the petitioners herein are relations of the husband of the de facto complainant justifying their impleadment as accused in connection with the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(7) In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ranjana Gopalarao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 Cri LJ 3866, wherein in connection with the case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court held that the word relative within the meaning of 498A of the Indian Penal Code relates to a person who is related by blood or marriage.

(8) It may be pointed out that so far as the present case is concerned, in the F. I. R. the husband of the de facto complainant has been described to be the adopted brother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It may further be pointed out that learned Court below on consideration of materials and recital in the F. I. R. refused to discharge the petitioners from the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code mainly on the ground that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are described to be relations of the husband of the de facto complainant by way of adoption.

(9) The offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted by way of legislation under the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 1983. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is set out below : "498A. Husband or relative of a woman subjecting her