1

Sl. December C.R.R. 3443 of 2018

11. 10, 2019

In the matter of: An application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;

And

In the matter of : Smt. Tuli Pattanayak
Versus
Smt. Gouri Jana

Mr. Pratik Kumar Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Anubrata Santra,
…for the petitioner.

Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree,
…for the opposite party.

Re: C.R.A.N. 4458 of 2019 (extension)
filed on November 20, 2019.

Although the matter is appearing under the heading “extension of interim

order”, by consent of the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure whereby and whereunder the petitioner has assailed a proceeding being Miscellaneous

Case No. 28 of 2018 (Trial Register Case No. 10 of 2018) pending in the court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate at Haldia, Purba Medinipur under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

SectionDomestic Violence Act, 2005 on the ground that no case was made out either in the complaint or

in the domestic incident report against the petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner resides in her

matrimonial home situated far away in different police station from her father’s place, which

would be evident from the address of the opposite party and the petitioner described in the petition

of complaint. The petitioner was married long back and since her marriage, she has been residing
2

separately in her husband’s place and there was no occasion for her to commit offence as alleged

by the opposite party.

In the instant case, the opposite party has alleged domestic violence

solely against her husband, which is evident from the domestic incident report submitted before

the learned Judicial Magistrate at Haldia. It is pointed out that the petitioner is the step-daughter of

the opposite party.

Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

opposite party, submits that the petitioner was only three (3) years’ old, when she had lost her

mother and the opposite party married to her father and that she brought up her as her own

daughter and she has not made any categorical allegation against the petitioner. However, it is

alleged that the petitioner has been instrumental in instigating her father to create domestic

violence.

Since I do not find any allegation as such from the four-corner of the

complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from SectionDomestic Violence Act and even

from the domestic incident report against the petitioner, I am unable to accept such contention

advanced on behalf of the opposite party.

The case, if taken together in its entirety, will go to show that there was a

complaint lodged by the opposite party against her husband under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code obviously on the allegation of mental and physical torture by her husband, which

stood compromised and she was provided with the residential accommodation in the quarter of the

Calcutta Port Trust at Haldia, where she is still residing. By now the husband of the opposite party

has retired from the services of Calcutta Port Trust and has constructed a house at Gandhinagar at

Haldia, as per the statement of the opposite party, where her elder son has stayed for some time,

but he had to leave the house as he was otherwise ousted from the house. It is also alleged that the

elder son is suffering from unsoundness of mind. It is also understood from the domestic incident

report itself that the opposite party right now is getting Rs. 3,500/- as maintenance from her

husband.

The allegation as made in the complaint is the subject matter and the
3

issues for decision by the trial court in accordance with the evidence, which can be adduced before

the learned Magistrate at the stage of trial, but at this stage this court is of the strong opinion that

in no way the present petitioner being the married step daughter of the opposite party can be

hauled up in a proceeding like the instant one, since in the context of the fact of this case, the

whole of the allegation is against the father of the petitioner. As such, I am of the view that

continuation of the impugned proceeding would be an abuse of the process of court.

I, therefore, quash the impugned proceeding being Miscellaneous Case

No. 28 of 2018 (Trial Register Case No. 10 of 2018) under Sections 12 of the Protection of

Women from SectionDomestic Violence Act, 2005 qua the petitioner, Smt. Tuli Pattanayak pending

before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Haldia, Purba Medinipur.

The revisional application is, thus, allowed. consequently, the application

filed under C.R.A.N. 4458 of 2019 is disposed of.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made

available to the applicant on urgent basis provided the requisites are put in.

( Shivakant Prasad, J. )

dns