C.R.R. 2750 of 2018
SB Court 29
In the matter of : Arup Sarkar Ors.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya
Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee …. For the Petitioners
This is an application for quashing of a proceeding where a
charge sheet has been submitted under sections 498A, 420, 506 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the petitioner no. 2 is the husband and petitioner nos. 2
and 3 are the parents in law of the de facto complainant / wife. The
learned advocate submits that on 22.04.2016 a marriage was
registered between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2
under the Special Marriage Act. On 16.01.2017 the opposite party no.
2 filed an application under section 25 of the Special Marriage Act
praying for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of nullity. He
submits that in the same petition the opposite party no. 2 had
categorically averred that after the marriage the parties resided at their
respective paternal residential addresses and as such marriage was
never consummated, it was agreed between the parties that both the
spouses would live in their respective paternal addresses till they
became completely financially established and that they would meet
each other, yet they would never reside as husband and wife for a
single moment. The learned advocate submits that contrary to such
averments, the present opposite party no. 2 made one allegations
against the present petitioners in the instant First Information Report.
The averments and allegations as contained in the First Information
Report are totally incompatible with the stand taken in the application
under section 25 of the Special Marriage Act. The learned advocate
also refers to an earlier First Information Report lodged by the present
opposite party no. 2 where a charge sheet was submitted under
sections 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that
the averments regarding what happened on the relevant date i.e.
31.05.2017 are totally different in the two First Information Reports. He
submits that no prima facie case is made out against the present
petitioners as would be evident from the plain reading of the First
Information Report and the charge sheet and any further continuation
of the impugned proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of the
Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the State
through the learned Public Prosecutor and upon the opposite party no.
2 by speed post with acknowledgement due, within a week. An
affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of
Let this matter appear under the heading ‘Contested Application’
two weeks hence.
The impugned proceeding shall remain stayed for a period of six
weeks from this date.
Liberty is granted to the parties to pray for extension or
modification or variation or vacating of the interim order upon notice to
the other side.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to
the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)