Tarun Kumar Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 13 September, 2017

1

13/09/2017

ARDR
CRR 401 of 2017

Tarun Kumar Mondal
Vs.

The State of West Bengal anr.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee,
… for the petitioner.

Mr. S. Mahapatra,
Mr. Dhananjan Banerjee,
…for the O. P. no.2.

Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee,
…for the State.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

who contended that the FIR does not speak of any ingredient regarding

the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. He has categorically stated

that in the FIR it has been mentioned by the de facto complainant that

the present petitioner has married somebody in the meantime. He further

stated that in spite of that the I.O. did not find anything and submitted

charge sheet only under Section 498A of the IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary. From the

Case Diary, it appears that the relations of the private opposite party

no.2 has made some statements that there was demand of some dowry,

but in the FIR there is no reflection about the demand of dowry. This

apart, those witnesses residing at Halisahar where the private opposite

party no.2, after marriage had been residing initially at Canning under

the South 24 Parganas and thereafter shifted to Mumbai.
2

Therefore, there is no element of Section 498A of the IPC so far as

explanation (a) and (b) are concerned of that Section, which are quoted

below:

Explanation – for the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman whether such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand;

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and since no

case is made out u/s 498A IPC, this Court has no option left with except

to quash the proceedings.

Accordingly, the proceeding being G.R. case no. 1282 of 2016

stands quashed in respect of the petitioner.

The CRR stands allowed.

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

to the parties.

(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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