Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused petitioners for quashing of proceedings in C.G.R. Case No. 5010/12 (which arose out of Lake Police Station Case No. 360 dated 01.10.2012 under Ss. 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986), now pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South -24 Parganas.
(2.) In the said application the petitioners have ventilated their grievances contending inter alia that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the defacto complainant of said case and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner No. 1) lodged written complaint to the officer -in -charge of the Lake Police Station alleging that the petitioner had inflicted physical and mental torture upon the opposite party No. 1. Admittedly, the marriage took place at Ballygunge, Kolkata between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After the marriage she left for her matrimonial home at Noida.
(3.) It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that after the marriage she was subjected to torture both physically and mentally for demand of dowry by the accused petitioners. It was also the allegation of the opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner in order to satisfy his pervert intention used to force upon her to assist him to fulfil his abnormal sexual dreams. When she drew the attention of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, they supported their son. On 07.02.2012 she was finally driven out from her matrimonial house which is situated at Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi and subsequently on 25th March, 2012, she returned to Kolkata. Pursuant to the said allegation, F.I.R. was lodged at Lake Police Station bearing Case No. 360 of 2012 under Sec. 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 03.10.2012 and got interim bail on 06.10.2012 which was confirmed on 16.10.2012. Initially another C.R.R. 4198 of 2012 was filed before this Court but that was withdrawn by the present petitioner accused. The petitioner further contended that on the basis of the prayer of the Investigating Officer, learned Court below issued a search warrant for the recovery of stridhan articles. Forwarding report speaks that those articles were kept in three separate lockers viz. No. 1st) locker at H.D.F.C. Bank at Goutam Buddha Nagar Branch at New Delhi in the name of accused petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, 2nd) locker at S.B.I., Sector -62 Noida Branch which stands in the name of the accused petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2, and 3rd) locker at S.B.I. of same Branch which stood in the name of the accused petitioner No. 1, Investigating Officer came to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was not present as there was no prior information of their coming on 24.01.2013. When the petitioner No. 1 went to his bank namely, S.B.I. Sector -62, Noida Branch, he came to know that as per direction of the Investigating Officer the single locker allotted to the petitioner along with the joint lockers have been freezed and made inoperative. On 2nd February, 2013, the opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Sec. 437 Clause 5 of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail and on 21.03.2013 in the absence of the petitioners and his conducting advocate, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Alipore cancelled the said bail against the petitioner No. 1 and was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against him. Challenging the said order dated 21.03.2013 the present petitioner accused No. 1 preferred an application being C.R.R. 1315 of 2013 and challenged the legality and propriety of the said order Dated 21.03.2013. This Court this time was pleased to stay the order 21.03.2013 and directed the accused petitioner No. 1 to surrender before the Court below. Subsequently, charge -sheet has been submitted in this case and the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence and copy was served upon the accused petitioners in terms of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.;