Sufficient grounds for charges under IPC Sections 498A and 406 were established based on the evidences collected during the investigation.

1. In this case the two petitioners, who are the accused persons in BGR Case No. 1719 of 2004 arising out of Regent Park P.S Case No. 76 of 2004, dated 03.05.2004 under S.498A / 406 of the Indian Penal Code , have challenged the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Court, Alipore, South 24 - Parganas on 28.10.2014. By virtue of the impugned order an application field by the petitioners for being discharged in the case was rejected, and the matter fixed for framing of charge.

2. It may be mentioned that charge - sheet in the case was submitted against the petitioners who are the husband and mother - in - law respectively of the defacto - complainant / opposite party no. 2.

3. Their contention is that the FIR lodged against them, as well as the charge - sheet subsequently submitted were untenable as no offences under S.498A / 406 of the IPC were made out from either the contents of the original FIR, or from the evidences subsequently collected during investigation.

4. The petitioners have drawn attention of this Court to the fact that it was alleged in the FIR lodged on 03.05.2004 that the accused persons had wrongfully retained in their custody the 'Streedhan' articles of the complainant including her ornaments etc. apart from her savings in the form of "Kisan Vikas Patras". Yet the defacto - complainant had suppressed the fact that even before lodging of the FIR, she had already got the bank locker jointly held by her with the petitioner No. 1 to be frozen, and so her allegations that her valuable articles therein were being wrongfully withheld from her by the petitioners is false.

5. The Petitioners relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in " U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another ", 2009 (6) SCC 757, have contended that the proceedings against them are not tenable on account of the ratio of this decision, the relevant extracts of which are as follows -
"5. S.498 - A of the Penal Code reads as under:
"498 - A. 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 purposes 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."
9. The word "cruelty" having been defined in terms of the aforesaid Explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of S.498 - A of the Penal Code. An offence in terms of the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein. They have to be the "husband" or his "relative". Either the husband of the woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not (sic) been instigating the husband of the first informant to torture her, as has been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Penal Code and the appellant may be