Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THE FIR in this case was lodged against as many as eight persons including the present petitioners, by Shri Shyamapada Hazra, father of the deceased victim Kakoli Pal, who allegedly died in her matrimonial house on 15.06.2014. The FIR Case No. 232 dated 15.06.2014 in Singur PS was started on the same day under Sections 498A/304 -B/406/34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant's daughter Kakoli Pal was married to the accused Prabir Pal on 11.02.2010. The complainant alleged that he had given cash amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs, golden ornaments weighing about 9 Bhoris and other items as dowry in the marriage. At that time the accused Prabir Pal was working in a private establishment as a Software Engineer in Delhi, and a daughter was born to the couple. After that the said accused demanded an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs from his wife for leading a luxurious lifestyle, but her father i.e., the complainant was unable to comply with such demand. He however somehow managed to give an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs. But the same was not sufficient to enable his son -in -law to purchase a flat. Prabir Pal therefore left his job and returned to his native place where he started living as an unemployed man. He allegedly demanded money from his wife's parental house to run the family, but the complainant could not meet up to such demands. As a result his son -in -law and the rest of his family members subjected the complainant's daughter to various types of mental and physical torture. On the 4th of June, 2014 the complainant's daughter narrated the incidents of torture to her mother when she had come to her matrimonial house on the occasion of 'Shasthi'. She was reluctant to go back to her matrimonial house but returned there after being persuaded by her parents on the 14th June, 2014. Thereafter the complainant tried to contact her on the telephone, but it was found to be switched off. On 15.06.2014, at about 1.30 p.m., the accused Prabir Pal called him and intimated that his daughter Kakoli Pal had committed suicide by hanging herself. The complainant thereafter lodged the FIR in the P.S.
(2.) THE present two petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, on the basis of which G.R. Case No. 732 of 2014 pending in the Court of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore was started. Both of them happen to be the married sisters in law of the deceased victim. Their contention is that they are residents of the faraway States of Andhra Pradesh (presently Telangana) and Delhi respectively for a very long time, and so they have no connection whatsoever with the day to day family life of the deceased victim, and have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner No. 1 claims to have been residing in the faraway State of Andhra Pradesh (presently Telangana) since as far back as June, 1984 with her husband, who is based in that State. To support this contention, she has placed on record the copies of the Birth Certificate of her son Abhijit Pal, dated 2nd of December 1988, her Voter Identity Card dated 8th April 2003, her Passport dated 24.10.2008 as well as her Aadhar Card and other bank related documents to show that she has been residing in Andhra Pradesh/Telangana all along. Similarly the petitioner No. 2 has placed on record the copies of her Household/Ration Card dated 8.10.2005, the Birth Certificate of her son Rishit Dhara dated 28.8.2006, as well as her Aadhar Card and various other documents of a public nature to show that she has been residing in Delhi ever since her marriage in the month of December 2004.
(3.) THE petitioners have also drawn attention of this Court to the statements of three witnesses examined during the course of investigation who did not say anything incriminating linking either of the two petitioners to the offences alleged in the FIR, and rather gave statements in favour of the petitioners. They have hence contended that the said FIR and the Charge Sheet subsequently submitted on the basis of the same are untenable and liable to be quashed. They have also placed various decisions of the Supreme Court in support of their contentions, which are being taken note of in the succeeding paragraphs.;