1
4 20.07.2017 CRR 388 of 2017
an Court No. 34
(Mir Haider Ali Ors. vs. State anr.)
with
CRAN 1346 of 2017
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Mr. Amit Biswas
Ms. Moumita Pandit
Mr. Tirthankar Dey
Ms. Priyanka Ghosh Chowdhury
…………. for the Petitioner
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld. P.P.
Mr. Abhra Mukherjee
Mr. Dipankar Mahato
…………. for the State
Heard the parties.
The petitioner contended that the FIR lodged by the defacto-
complainant/private opposite party no. 2 is a false one. He has referred to an order
passed by the High Court in connection with CRR 3310/2013 wherein this court
held that “on perusal of the order no. 18 dated 18.07.2013 of the learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Kandi, it appears that one Mojammal Haque had
filed the matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal right against the opposite party
no. 2. The said case was filed in the year 2012 and vide order dated 18.07.2013 the
said Mojammal Haque, husband of the present opposite party no. 2 got an ex parte
decree for restitution of conjugal right. Be it mentioned that the present opposite
party no. 2 did not contest in the said matrimonial proceeding in spite of receiving
summons, as it appears from the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division.
Referring this part of the order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
contended that when FIR was lodged at that time, the present opposite party no. 2
was not the wife of the present petitioner and for such reason there was no
matrimonial relationship between him and the present opposite party no. 2.
2
According to him, it will be a sheer abuse of the process of law if the proceeding
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia is allowed to continue.”
It further appears to me that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was
filed by the present accused petitioner against the defacto-complainant and he got a
decree from a competent court. The said decree was passed on 18.07.2013.
Thereafter, within two months, she filed a case under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code against her erstwhile husband and others.
The learned Public Prosecutor after going through the case records and
the order of the learned civil court, which has passed a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights, submitted that he has nothing to say in this matter.
Thus, considering the above, it seems to me that it would be sheer abuse
of process of law to allow the proceedings to continue.
Accordingly, the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case No.
6837/2013 of Golabari P.S., Howrah stand quashed in respect of the present
petitioners only.
Thus, this criminal revisional application stands allowed. The CRAN
application also stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial court for
information and necessary action.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given
to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)
