(Mir Haider Ali & Ors vs State & Anr.) on 20 July, 2017

1

4 20.07.2017 CRR 388 of 2017
an Court No. 34
(Mir Haider Ali Ors. vs. State anr.)
with
CRAN 1346 of 2017

Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Mr. Amit Biswas
Ms. Moumita Pandit
Mr. Tirthankar Dey
Ms. Priyanka Ghosh Chowdhury
…………. for the Petitioner

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld. P.P.

Mr. Abhra Mukherjee
Mr. Dipankar Mahato
…………. for the State

Heard the parties.

The petitioner contended that the FIR lodged by the defacto-

complainant/private opposite party no. 2 is a false one. He has referred to an order

passed by the High Court in connection with CRR 3310/2013 wherein this court

held that “on perusal of the order no. 18 dated 18.07.2013 of the learned Civil

Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Kandi, it appears that one Mojammal Haque had

filed the matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal right against the opposite party

no. 2. The said case was filed in the year 2012 and vide order dated 18.07.2013 the

said Mojammal Haque, husband of the present opposite party no. 2 got an ex parte

decree for restitution of conjugal right. Be it mentioned that the present opposite

party no. 2 did not contest in the said matrimonial proceeding in spite of receiving

summons, as it appears from the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division.

Referring this part of the order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

contended that when FIR was lodged at that time, the present opposite party no. 2

was not the wife of the present petitioner and for such reason there was no

matrimonial relationship between him and the present opposite party no. 2.
2

According to him, it will be a sheer abuse of the process of law if the proceeding

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia is allowed to continue.”

It further appears to me that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was

filed by the present accused petitioner against the defacto-complainant and he got a

decree from a competent court. The said decree was passed on 18.07.2013.

Thereafter, within two months, she filed a case under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code against her erstwhile husband and others.

The learned Public Prosecutor after going through the case records and

the order of the learned civil court, which has passed a decree for restitution of

conjugal rights, submitted that he has nothing to say in this matter.

Thus, considering the above, it seems to me that it would be sheer abuse

of process of law to allow the proceedings to continue.

Accordingly, the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No.

6837/2013 of Golabari P.S., Howrah stand quashed in respect of the present

petitioners only.

Thus, this criminal revisional application stands allowed. The CRAN

application also stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial court for

information and necessary action.

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 *