IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
CRR 2754 of 2004
Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee Ors.
The State of West Bengal Anr.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Debasish Roy, Adv.,
For the State: Ms. Saugata Santra, Adv.
Heard on: 17.07.2019
SUVRA GHOSH, J. :-
1) The revisional application has been preferred for quashing of
proceedings of BGR Case No. 2973 of 2003 pending before the then
Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, under Sections
498A/Section34 of the Penal Code.
2) The Opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners
who are her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively,
under Section 498A of the Penal Code alleging that petitioner no. 3, an
employee of the Indian Air Force, inflicted physical and mental torture
upon her and finally all the petitioners drove her out of their house
after holding back her child with them forcibly. Charge-sheet was
submitted in the case after completion of investigation.
3) The petitioners referred to letters written by opposite party no. 2 to the
Station Commisioner, Air Force Station, Barrackpore and also to the
officer-in-charge, Purba Jadavpur Police Station, stating that the
dispute between the parties was amicably settled and marital peace
and harmony were restored for which she did not intend to proceed
with the case any further. A copy of order in Mat Suit No. 30 of 2004
filed by petitioner no. 3 against opposite party no. 2 before the
Additional District Judge, Alipore under Section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, reveals that the marriage between petitioner no. 3 and
opposite party no. 2 solemnised on August 9, 1996 and registered on
September 30, 1996 was declared null and void.
4) Opposite party no. 2 did not care to appear before the court or contest
the revisional application despite due service of notice upon her.
5) The State is represented.
6) It transpires on scrutiny of the material on record that opposite party
no. 2 was married to petitioner no. 3 and the other petitioners are her
parents-in-law. Petitioner no. 1 has expired in the mean time.
7) It was observed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore in his
order dated 31-03-2005 in Mat Suit No. 30 of 2004 referred to earlier
that though opposite party no. 2 married petitioner no. 3 on 09-08-
1996 and the said marriage was registered on 30-09-1996, it appeared
from the certified copy of a marriage registration certificate under the
SectionSpecial Marriage Act, 1954 filed by petitioner no. 3 that opposite party
no. 2 was earlier married to one Ranjan Mukherjee on 05-04-1993.
Such earlier marriage of the opposite party remained unchallenged
before the trial court. The trial court accordingly held that as the
opposite party already had a spouse living at the time of her marriage
with petitioner no. 3, the subsequent marriage was null and void. As
such, a decree of nullity of marriage was granted by the court.
8) When the marriage between the petitioner no. 3 and opposite party
no. 2 has been declared null and void by a Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction and such order remains unchallenged, nothing remains of
the allegation made by the opposite party under Section 498A of the
Penal Code. The opposite party not being the legally married wife of
petitioner no. 3, the question of an offence under Section 498A of the
Penal Code does not arise. The opposite party has also submitted
letters before the Station Commander, Air Force Station, Barrackpore,
and officer-in-charge, Purba Jadavpur Police Station stating that the
dispute between the parties was amicably settled and she did not
intend to proceed with the case any further. The child born in the
wedlock of petitioner no. 3 and opposite party no. 2 is in custody of
9) In the light of the observation made above, there is no scope to
continue the proceedings under Section 498A of the Penal Code before
the trial court and the said proceedings should be quashed. The
complaint was lodged in 2003 and the present revisional application is
pending since 2004. Continuation of the proceedings before the trial
court shall not only be a futile exercise, but shall defeat the ends of
10) CRR 2754 of 2004 is allowed.
11) Proceedings of BGR Case No. 2973 of 2003 pending before the
then learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Section
498A/Section34 of the Penal Code, arising out of Purba Jadavpur, Police
Station Case No. 93 dated 12-08-2003 is hereby quashed.
12) Urgent certified website photocopies of this judgment, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the
(Suvra Ghosh, J)