(Sri Pritam Dutta vs State & Anr.) on 15 June, 2017

1

7 15.06.2017
an Court No. 34
CRR 1945 of 2013
(Sri Pritam Dutta vs. State anr.)

Mr. S. C. Karar
Mr. J. K. Datta
Mr. S. Roy
…………. for the Petitioner

Mr. Imran Ali
…………. for the State

Affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record.

Heard the parties.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that

the moment the present petitioner has filed the suit under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, the present opposite party wife has lodged an FIR. He has produced

certified copy of this order passed in M.C. No. 188/2011 wherein the petitioner of

that case [Rina Datta] did not pursue her application under Section 125 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and, as a result, that was dismissed.

The learned counsel also filed the Xerox copy of the order passed in

connection with MAT No. 137/2010 wherein his application under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn on the ground that an application under Section

13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred. Ultimately, the said matrimonial

suit under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was decided by order dated

16.03.2013 by the learned District Judge, Hooghly. It appears from the said order

that the petition was allowed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the

basis of the compromise that took place by and between them.

On perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the allegation under
2

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged when the present opposite party

READ  Ram S.S. Parihar vs Suniti Bhadauria And Ors. on 20 April, 2007

received the notice under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Admittedly, the marriage took place in 2007 and the present private

opposite party left the house of the petitioner in the year 2010. After lapse of twelve

months, she filed an application under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.

It also appears from the affidavit of service filed today that time and

again notice was sent to the private opposite party no. 2 but that was not claimed.

It further appears that the Postal Authority has given intimation but inspite of that

she did not have the courage to take it.

Considering the circumstances, I am of the view that it will be a sheer

abuse of process of court to proceed with this case any more.

Accordingly, the CRR stands allowed.

The criminal case being G.R. case no. 832/2011 stands quashed.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given

to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *