JUDGMENT :

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) :

1. The petitioners have filed the instant criminal revisional application seeking for a direction to quash the proceedings of Women Police Station, Jalpaiguri Case No 52 of 2019, dated 20.05.2019 filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No 1790 of 2019) pending before the court of the Ld. 1st Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri.

2. The Ld. Trial Court as aforesaid took cognizance of the case cited above based on the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 inter alia alleging physical and mental torture supplemented by demand of dowry by the petitioners including the husband of the opposite party no. 1.

3. Investigation through the formal FIR drawn on 20.05.2019 ended in submission of charge sheet on 31.07.2019 against the petitioners and the co-accused persons under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioners and the Ld. Advocate for the State submitted their rival contentions.

5. Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code states as follows:

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means –

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

6. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act state as follows:

Section 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry – (1) if any person, after he commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.

Section 4. Penalty for demanding dowry – if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

7. The narrative of the opposite party no. 2 in the alleged complaint did not explicitly describe the specific role played by either of the petitioners herein to have inflicted direct physical and mental torture upon the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner no.2 a married lady resides at a separate and distinct address who has not been accused categorically to demand dowry, or resort to any coercive means.

8. The charge sheet bearing 82/19 dated 31.07.19 cited ‘6’ (six) prosecution witnesses intended to be examined, 2 (two) of whom are the police witnesses and the rest are the relatives of opposite party no 2. Apart from her relatives, other independent witnesses have not been cited to be examined. There are inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and that of the complaint which