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Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn on the ground that an application under Section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
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged when the present opposite party
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.)