In the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 20.02.2017 and the proceeding in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 870 of 2013 dated 05.11.2013 under Sections 498A/315/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was registered on Kotwali Police Station Charge Sheet No. 241 of 2015 dated 09.03.2015 under Sections 498A/315/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending as G.R. Case No. 3636 of 2013, before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Paschim Medinipore.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the opposite party no. 2/wife in her written complaint alleged that the petitioners being the husband and in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 have committed serious matrimonial torture upon her and have forced her to pay dowry. It was further alleged that petitioner no. 1 tried to destroy her advanced stage pregnancy.

3. The petitioners submit that the marriage between the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 was solemnized on 12.12.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Since the opposite party no. 2 was not willing to reside with the joint family, the petitioner no. 1 for the purpose of maintaining peace was residing separately with the opposite party no. 2 as husband and wife at Golapi Chowk, P.S. Kotwali, Paschim Medinipore.

4. After arrival at the new rented house, the opposite party no. 2 started misbehaving with the petitioner no. 1 and time and again put the petitioner under severe difficulties as there was much interference by the family of the opposite party no. 2.

5. The petitioners state that the petitioners are completely innocent and in no way connected with the commission of any offence far less the offences alleged herein. It is evident from the nature of hollow allegations in the written complaint that the instant proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide. The petitioners no. 2 and 3 never resided with the opposite party no. 2 and the allegations as made in the written complaint are blatant lie.

6. Opposite party no. 2 besides filing of this false complaint has also reported the incident to the office of the petitioner no. 1, whereby, a disciplinary proceeding was started against him. Opposite party no. 2 has also filed case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and is enjoying the maintenance from the salary of the petitioner no. 1. Opposite party no. 2 is residing separately at her parental house and in conspiracy with her paramour is creating trouble in the life of the petitioners.

7. Sachinandan Dhara, father of the petitioner no. 1 has expired on 05.08.2015.

8. Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire proceeding is bad in law and is not maintainable in the eye of law and that the Learned Magistrate erred in not considering that the petitioners are completely innocent and in no way connected with the commission of any offences far less the offences alleged herein and they bear clean antecedent. The opposite party no. 2 has initiated the instant proceedings which is palpably frivolous and vexatious in nature and the same is initiated in order to harass and humiliate the present petitioners.

9. Mr. Subimal Ghorai, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the trial in this case should be permitted to proceed as the proceeding is in accordance with law.

10. Mr. Arijit Ganguly, learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary.

11. From the materials on record and the case diary, it appears that the de facto complainant/wife lived with her husband, (the petitioner no. 1) separately from her in-laws, petitioner no. 2 (mother-in-law) and petitioner no. 3 (brother-in-law).

12. The injury report dated 18.11.2013 shows the injury after the alleged assault as “A small abrasion found over Rt palm”.

13. From the order dated 26.11.2013 of the trial Court, it appears that the de facto complainant has delivered a