CRR 271 of 2014
Debjani Karmakar ors.
The State of West Bengal anr.
Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal,
Mr. Sujan Chatterjee,
Ms. Sreyashi Bhowmick,
…for the petitioners.
Ms. Rituparna De,
Ms. Debjani Sahu,
… for the State.
Mr. Raindra Narayan Dutta,
Mr. Hare Krishna Halder,
…for the O.P. no.2.
After hearing the submissions of both parties including the learned
counsel for the de-facto complainant, it seems to me that a tendency is
being increased in our society to entangle all the family members or
relatives wherever they reside, to implicate in a case under Section 498A
of the I.P.C. This tendency has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in many occasions and lastly also in a case reported in 2016 (3)
SCC 724. This case falls within the purview of that decision.
Admittedly, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the resident of separate
district and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the uncles-in-law. The
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. speaks that the father
of the victim candidly stated that these accused persons are not
responsible for any of the offences. Statement of the father of the de-
facto complainant as well as the statement of others have given a death
blow to the prosecution case so far as present accused petitioners are
In such circumstances, this is a fit case where the Court should
rise to the occasion and to invoke its power under Section 482 of the Cr.
Accordingly, the CRR stands allowed.
The proceeding being G.R. case no. 208 of 2012 pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Masigatrate, Rampurhat is hereby
quashed in respect of petitioners herein only.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given
to the parties.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )