Procedure vs In Re : Sumitra Mitra & Ors on 11 April, 2017

1

11.04.2017
Item No. 333

sdas

C.R.R. No. 1198 of 2017

In Re : An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

And
In Re : Sumitra Mitra Ors. …. petitioners

Mr. Siladitya Sanyal,
Mr. Amajit De
……. for the petitioners

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for quashing of

the proceeding being Durgapur Women Police Station Case No. 93 dated

16.12.2016 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections

498A/323/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Durgapur. It has been alleged in the first information report

that on 19.11.2003, Sumanta Mitra, son of the petitioner no. 2 married

opposite party no. 2 according to the Hindu rites and customs. Petitioners

no. 1 and 2, being the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the

said opposite party no. 2 subjected her to mental and physical torture on

further demands of dowry. It has also been alleged that husband of the

opposite party no. 2 used to misbehave with her and even assaulted her in

the month of July, 2016. Opposite party no. 2 found that her husband
2

was exchanging intimate messages with the petitioner no. 3 whom he had

befriended through a social networking site. When she objected, she was

physically tortured and her husband even tried to murder her by pressing

pillow on her mouth.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

impugned proceeding has been instituted in retaliation to a divorce

proceeding lodged by the husband and a complaint lodged against the

READ  Harish vs State on 15 May, 2014

opposite party no. 2 by her father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 herein.

I am of the view that the aforesaid allegations, prima facie, disclose

the ingredients of the alleged offences. Truthfulness of such allegations

may be gone into in the course of the investigation. Mala fide of the

opposite party no. 2 is questions of fact which may be probabilised at the

appropriate stage of the proceeding in accordance with law.

However, I do not find that there is any jurisdictional error in

registration of the first information report and commencement of

investigation thereon.

Hence, I do not wish to interfere with the impugned investigation. In

the event the investigation results in filing of police report against the

petitioners, it shall be open to them to agitate the issues canvassed herein

at the appropriate stage of the proceeding in accordance with law, if so

advised.

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.
3

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to

the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary

formalities.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Comment

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