KB CRR No.591 of 2019
In the matter of : Chhangoolal Gupta
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Arindam Ganguly
Mr. Debangan Bhattacharjee
Ms. Swarnali Saha
… For the petitioner.
This is an application praying for quashing of a
proceedings in which the charge-sheet had submitted under
Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the father-in-
law of the opposite party no.2/defacto complainant. The
marriage was solemnized between the petitioner’s son and the
opposite party no.2 took place in 2012. Soon thereafter, some
dispute cropped up between the couple. The husband lodged
a G,D. entry against the wife and her relations alleging mis-
treatment and interference in family affairs. The wife
voluntarily left the matrimonial home in 2013. Soon thereafter
the husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal
rights. He also filed under the Guardians and Wards Act
claiming guardianship of their minor child. In 2016, the
Court, by consent, allowed visitation right to the petitioner. In
spite of that the petitioner was not allowed to visit.
Accordingly, in 2016 several G.D. entries had to be lodged in
this regard. After all these and as a counter blast to the prior
steps taken by the husband, the opposite party no.2 filed the
instant First Information Report on 27.6.2016. No prima facie
case is made out against the present petitioner as would be
evident from the plain reading of the First Information Report
and the charge-sheet. Besides the general allegations levelled
against all the accused, the only specific allegation against the
present petitioner seems to be that as a diabetic patient, the
petitioner used to take insulin and used to carelessly leave
syringe here and there and the child could have accessed the
same. The present petitioner has been advised a hepatic
transplant. Any further continuation of the proceeding shall
be an abuse of process of Court
I have heard the learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition.
Let the petitioner serve a copy of the petition upon
the State through learned Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Calcutta and upon the opposite party no.2 by Speed Post with
Acknowledgement Due within a week and affidavit of service
shall be filed to that effect on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear as a “Contested Application”
two weeks hence.
The impugned proceeding shall remain stayed for a
period of four weeks so far as the present petitioner is
The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension
or modification or vacating of the interim order upon notice to
the other sides.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of
( Jay Sengupta, J. )