JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. 

The revisional application reflects that the opposite party no.2 appeared on 03.03.2025 and on 02.05.2025. However, this revisional application was called on several occasions and on the last date although, the learned advocate for the opposite party no.2 was present, today, when the revisional application is taken up, learned advocate for the opposite party no.2 evaded to participate in the proceedings.

2. The present petitioners have preferred the present revisional application for quashing of Special Case no.17 of 2022 arising out of Bhaktinagar Police Station case no. 813 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022 wherein case was registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigating agency on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 498A/323/509/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r) {Za-(C)} of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The allegations made in the letter of complaint addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Ashighar Outpost, Siliguri which was treated to be the foundation of Bhaktinagar Police Station case no. 813 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022 are as follows:

4. The informant was married to one Atanu Sarkar and shortly before marriage they became acquainted with each other. It is alleged that the husband concealed many facts about him and manipulated her to get married. He also refused to take her to matrimonial home and instead he took her to a rented accommodation. In course of time when she became pregnant her mother-in-law came to see her and as she insisted, her mother-in-law took her to the matrimonial home. After she had been to her matrimonial home she was subjected to physical and mental torture and there were demand of money from her father. She further alleged that she was subjected to strangulation and was also threatened that her child would be killed. The informant also accused the petitioners of not allowing her to enter into the kitchen or the temple owing to her caste and she was often being teased and taunted because of her caste. She was also not provided with proper food during her period of medication or during her period of pregnancy. She was physically tortured, being pushed, slapped etc without any reason. She was admitted to a private nursing home for delivery and on 29.04.2015 she gave birth to a female child and after five days when she returned back from nursing home she found that her jewelleries have been taken away without her consent. She further alleged that the petitioners refused to look after her child as the child was a female child and compelled her to go and stay at her parent’s house. For three years the petitioners hardly visited or took information regarding her financial condition, as such after she was compelled to go to her matrimonial home she was disowned by the petitioners. With the aid of the local Councilor and neighbours she entered her matrimonial home but because of circumstances being created she could not stay at the matrimonial home and on or about 02.05.2020 she was thrown out along with her child. She alleged lastly she intended to enter her matrimonial home on 27.07.2022, however, she was subjected to physical assault, abuses by the petitioners and because of their attitude she was compelled to return at her parental home by leaving her matrimonial home.

5. As it has already been stated that the prosecution on conclusion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet and the charge-sheet has been based on the statements of Bhupendra Nath Roy @ Bhupen Roy; Dipali Roy; Dipika Orown; Hrishikesh Roy; Subash Roy and the de-facto complainant Mampi Roy along with other police officers, and assessment was made in respect of the contents of the statements.

6. On an analysis of the statements of the each witness it is reflected that the version which has b