1
42
13.07.2018
sd
c.no.29
C. R. R 1382 of 2018
In the matter of: Vargab Mallik and ors. vs. The State and anr.
Mr. Koushik Roy
Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee
…for the petitioners.
This is an application for quashing of the proceeding in which a
charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498A/406/323/34 of the
Penal Code.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband, the petitioner no. 2 is the
mother-in-law and the petitioner no. 3 is the sister-in-law of the de facto
complainant/opposite party no. 2. He submits that the impugned
proceeding was started pursuant to a direction under Section 156(3) of
the Code filed by the opposite party no. 2 in March, 2012. He submits
that this is only a counter-blast to a prior suit for divorce filed by the
husband/petitioner no. 1 in January, 2012.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that no prima facie is made out as would be evident from a plain
reading of the first information report and the charge-sheet.
2
I have heard the submission made on behalf of the petitioners
and have gone through the revisional application.
Let the petitioners serve a copy of this application upon the
State though the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta and
upon opposite party no. 2 by Speed Post with A/D within a week and file
an affidavit of service to that effect on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear under the heading “Contested
Application” four weeks hence.
There shall be a stay of the impugned proceeding for a period of
eight weeks from this date.
The parties are at liberty to pray for extension or modification
or vacating of the interim order upon notice to the other side.
Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given
to the parties upon usual undertaking.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)