. No. 33
CRR 1339 of 2019
In re: Kudan @ Kundan Kishore Ors.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya,
Mr. Rahul Sarkar.
…..for the petitioner.
In this revisional application, the petitioner has sought to quash G.R. case
No.40 of 2019 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siliguri corresponding to the Women P.S. Case No.02 of 2019 dated
4th January, 2019 under Sections 498A/Section315 of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the elder brother of the husband
of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.2 is the wife of the petitioner
no.1. The petitioner no.1 is currently serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Baduan and is staying separately from his parental home with his wife for past
25 years and it is not possible for them to use any kind of force or any coercive
action against the opposite party no.2. The petitioner no.3 is the younger brother
of the husband of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.4 is the wife of
the petitioner no.3. The petitioner no.3 and 4 got married in the year of 2007 and
since then they are in Chennai for work and then to USA, UK and finally settled
in Sweden. The petitioner no.3 works in HCL and holds a top-level executive post
in Sweden. The petitioner no.5 is the brother of the husband of the opposite
party no.2 and the petitioner no.6 is the wife of the petitioner no.5. It is
submitted that the petitioner no.5 is a Police Personnel (Sub-Inspector of Police)
and is living with his wife separately from his parental home since 1997 from the
date of his appointment in service and he is now posted in Meerut of U.P. It is
pointed out that the petitioners name has been dragged unnecessarily with the
vague and untrue false allegations levelled by the opposite party no.4 in her FIR
dated 4th February, 2019 and that FIR under Sections 498A/Section315 has been lodged
after a matrimonial suit was filed by the husband of the opposite party no.2 and
the whole of the FIR story is false and concocted.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and in consideration of
the facts scenario, let there be an interim order of stay of proceeding in G.R. case
No.40 of 2019 for a period of six weeks with direction to serve copy of the
application along with annexures to the opposite party no.2 by speed post with
a/d and the opposite party State through the learned Public Prosecutor within a
period of three weeks and to file affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.
List the matter under the heading “Contested Application” after expiry of
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)