(Sourav Roy & Anr vs State & Anr.) on 5 May, 2017

1

7 05.05.2017
an Court No. 34
CRR 2006 of 2014
(Sourav Roy anr. vs. State anr.)

Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Usuf Ali Dewan
Mr. Asif Dewan
…………. for the Petitioner

Mr. Imran Ali
…………. for the State

Affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that

there is no element of Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code against either of

the accused. He has further submitted that both the accused petitioners deserve to

be discharged and the proceedings should be quashed.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

contended that there are enough materials against both the accused persons so far

as the case diary is concerned.

Be that as it may, on perusal of the chargesheet and the statement

recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it reveals that there

is no specific allegation against the mother-in-law i.e. the accused petitioner no. 2

herein.

Admittedly, the accused petitioner no. 2 had been residing elsewhere

and statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had

been given by two witnesses who are residents of Dhanbad, Jharkhand and others

are residents of Srirampore, Hooghly. The FIR does not disclose any story of

keeping the jewellery in the locker of the mother-in-law.
2

In the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the victim has given such allegation but the I.O. concerned did not

READ  Smt. Gulshan Kaur Bedi And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And ... on 22 December, 2016

ascertain whether those articles are kept in the locker or not.

Be that as it may, there is no ingredient of Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code against the accused petitioner no. 2 herein. Accordingly, the

proceedings bearing G.R. Case No. 473/2007 be quashed in respect of the accused

petitioner no. 2.

The learned trial court shall proceed with the case without being

influenced by any of the observations made above. The trial be expedited

accordingly.

Hence, the criminal revisional application stands allowed in part.

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 *