Item no. 4
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.
In the matter of:-
Madan Mohan Mondal ors.
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
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
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.
Matter to appear in the list as “Contested Application” three weeks
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)