CRR 1368 of 2010
Fakhre Alam Ors.
State of West Bengal anr.
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Biswajit Manna,
…for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhra Mukherjee,
Ms. Mayukhi Mitra,
…for the State
Affidavit of service is taken on record.
None appears on behalf of the private opposite party.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
submitted that the FIR itself does not speak of any ingredient of Section
498A of the IPC is concerned so far as these petitioners are concerned.
It appears from the FIR that the de-facto complainant’s marriage
was held with one Iftikar Alam, who is working at USA. The FIR further
speaks that the de-facto complainant also accompanied him in USA and
stayed there for some years. When she came back to Calcutta and began
to reside with this accused/petitioners, she came to know that her
husband had gone to USA leaving the child to her custody. Only
allegation against the present petitioners are that they had been abusing
her regularly and assaulted her physically.
It is perhaps needless to say that this so-called assault and
abusing by filthy languages do not come under the purview of Section
498A of the IPC.
This apart, now a days there is a tendency to include the inmates
of the husband in almost every proceeding u/s 498A IPC. This aspect
was supposed to be looked into.
It is submitted at the Bar that the present private opposite party
no. 2 is again married and she is also settled at USA. Possibly that is the
reason for which she did not turn up before this Court.
Considering the circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow
the proceeding of Beniapukur (Section R1) P. S. Case no. 36 dated
03/2/2006 to go on.
Accordingly, the said proceeding is quashed in respect of the
present petitioners i.e. to say Fakhre Alam (since deceased), Akhtari
Begum and Irshad Alam. Proceeding in respect of Iftikar Alam shall
With this direction, this CRR stands allowed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given
to the parties.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )