SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 July, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APELLATE SIDE

The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH

CRR 2754 of 2004

Prasanta Kumar Mukherjee Ors.

V/s.

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

Date: 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

the petitioner.

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

justice.

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

usual formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation