1

25.02.2019

Item no. 4
Ct. No.22
CHC

C.R.R. No.295 of 2019

In Re:- An application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of proceedings of C.R. Case
No.197 of 2018, pending before the Court of Learned Judicial
Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Midnapore under Sections
498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.

And
In the matter of:-

Madan Mohan Mondal ors.

… Petitioners

Mr. Milan Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rahul Ganguly
… for the petitioners

This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim

Midnapore under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code

read with Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection

with C.R. Case No.197 of 2018.

Learned advocate for the revisionist adverting to order dated

23.7.2018 passed by the learned court below submitted that

learned Magistrate ought to have examined all the witnesses, while

resorting to hold an enquiry by himself prior to issuing process

under the provisions of the law and such exercise was absolutely

within the requirement of the law, and instead thereof, learned
2

Magistrate has proceeded to examine one witness and thereafter

arrived his satisfaction to issue process against the accused

persons. Attention of the Court is drawn to a decision reported in

2018 (3) AICLR 625 (Cal), whereby and wherein it was decided that

it was mandatory for the learned Magistrate to make adherence of

Section 202 Cr.P.C. for accused residing outside the territorial

jurisdiction of learned Magistrate before issuing process under the

provision of the law. Admittedly, accused persons made in this

case have their ordinary residence outside the territorial

jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate issuing process against

them.

Since there are as many as five witnesses cited in the petition

of complaint, it was for the learned Magistrate of the court below to

examine rest of the witnesses while resorting to enquiry as

contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to arrive at his

satisfaction before issuing process. The Court in a situation like

this, feels it necessary to make interference.

Let there be an order directing stay of proceedings for a period

of four weeks from date.

In the meantime, petitioners are directed to serve copy of the

application upon the opposite party and to furnish affidavit-of-

service on the returnable date.

3

Matter to appear in the list as “Contested Application” three weeks

hence.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)