RAJENDRA NATH SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS is to consider an application of the petitioner, Smt. Shyamali Gag being aggrieved by orders passed on 16.1.03 and 24.02.03 by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Howrah in connection with Shibpur Police Station Case No. 276 dated 18.11.02 and G.R. Case No. 1862 of 2002 taking cognisance against the petitioner under Sections 498 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code together with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks to get the prosecution quashed as against her on the following grounds as has been contended on her behalf by Mr. Abhijit Adhya, Learned Lawyer for the petitioner. It has been contended that the charge -sheet as has been submitted in the aforesaid GR Case which arose out of a written complaint filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah which was sent to Shibpur Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the aforesaid complaint the petitioner has been impleaded as accused No. 7 and in pars 8 of the petition has been described as one of the married sisters of the accused No. 1 i.e., Shib Nath Dolui, the husband of the de facto complainant. It has been contended that the petitioner is in no way connected with the family of the accused but she happened to be a neighbour of the said Manju Dolui, i.e. the de facto complainant. It has been contended that she not being a relative of the husband or of the said family, the prosecution under the aforesaid Acts does not lie against him. Sri Adhya has urged that Section 498 -A I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not at all applicable against a neighbour.
(3.) MR . Nilanjan Bhattacharji, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, the de facto complainant, has in his usual fairness submitted that the petitioner admittedly is not a member of the family of the accused No. 1 i.e., the spouse, the husband. But he goes on urging that the petitioner do have considerable influence on the family and used to ill -treat the de facto complainant if not assault sometimes. Mrs. Krishna Ghosh appearing together with Mr. Kallol Mondol for the State produced the CD and on perusal of the same as admitted from the materials quoted from the CD it appears that the petitioner is none but a neighbour of the Dolui family wherein the de facto complainant was married. Keeping in view of the aforesaid submissions of all the parties let me quote the Section in itself; "498 -A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her 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 the 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 wilful 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.";