Sunil Thomas, J.

1. The revision petitioner was married to the second respondent herein. The third respondent is the mother of the second respondent and the 4th respondent is the brother of the second respondent. After the marriage, matrimonial relationship got strained, leading to several matrimonial proceedings. The revision petitioner filed CMP No. 5072/2017 arraying respondents 2 to 4 as accused and alleging that, at the time of fixing her marriage, the first accused and the father of the first accused, who has since deceased, had demanded dowry of 50 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 2,00,000/-. The parents of the revision petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold. On the date of the engagement, the father of the revision petitioner entrusted Rs. 2,00,000/- to the father of the first accused and at the time of marriage, 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were worn by the revision petitioner. After the marriage, the first accused, in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3, allegedly misappropriated the gold ornaments. Ultimately she had to initiate judicial proceedings for recovery of the gold ornaments and money. Alleging that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC, the revision petitioner laid the above complaint. As a part of Section 202 Cr.P.C. enquiry, the statement of the revision petitioner and two other witnesses were recorded. The learned Magistrate, on an evaluation of the oral testimonies of the above two witnesses, concluded that, regarding the dowry allegedly claimed, there were divergent versions and hence, it was unbelievable. Further, stating that the revision petitioner failed to prove the prima facie case of demand for dowry and that the petitioner was bent upon to harass the accused persons, dismissed the complaint. This is under challenge in this revision.

2. Heard both sides and examined the records.

3. The Court below had concluded that, the evidence tendered by the three witnesses were inconsistent, regarding the alleged demand for dowry. It was further held that, though the incident allegedly happened in 2003 and the parties have been living separately since 19/08/2016, the complaint was laid only in 2017. By that time, the matrimonial tie up between the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein had irretrievably broken. Hence the Court below concluded that the application was filed to harass the accused person, which could not be permitted.

4. The Court below had extracted the version of PW 1 touching upon the demand for dowry. It was stated that, PW 2, who is the father of the revision petitioner, had stated that it was the deceased father of the first accused, who had made the demand for dowry. Dowry was demanded in prosecution of common intention of himself and all the other accused. However, the Court below noted that, PW 3, the neighbour, had yet another version that the demand was made by the 2nd accused and the father of the first accused. This led the Court below to conclude that the versions were inconsistent.

5. This has to be appreciated in the background of the actual version in the complaint, which was reiterated by PW 1. In the complaint it was stated that, in the course of marriage ceremony, after discussing with the second accused and the father of the second accused, the second accused offered to solemnize the marriage and demanded dowry which was agreed by the remaining accused. Hence, it was stated that, the demand involved all the three accused and the father of the first accused. Substantially, PW 1 has deposed in accordance with the above. It is not as if any specified person alone had demanded the dowry. In the above circumstances, the version in the complaint that the second accused made the demand for dowry for and on behalf of the accused was substantially spoken by the other witnesses, though in different versions.

6. It is pertinent to note that this mode of anal