SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pratima Goswami & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 5 April, 2019

05.04.2019
Sl.no. 05
Ct. No. 30
P.M.

C. R. R. 2078 OF 2015

Pratima Goswami Ors.

– vs –

The State of West Bengal Anr.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Avik Ghatak

….. for the Petitioners

Ms. Faria Hossain

… for the State

By the instant application the petitioners have sought for quashing of the

proceedings of G.R. Case No. 468 of 2004 arising out of Rishra P.S. Case No. 40 of 2004

dated 19.05.2004 under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srerampore, Hooghly.

The facts in brief leading to the present application are that on 23rd April, 2004 the

opposite party No. 2 herein/complainant filed a petition of complaint under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Srerampore alleging offences under Section 498A/406 of

the Indian Penal Code against her husband Gourab Goswami, mother-in-law Pratima

Goswami, aunts-in-law Dipali Chakraborty and Sukla Guha. On the basis of the aforesaid

complaint, Rishra P.S. Case No. 40 of 2004 dated 19.05.2004 was initiated. Investigation

culminated in the submission of the charge sheet under Section 498A/406 I.P.C. against all

the accused persons.

The petitioners herein are the mother-in-law and the two aunts-in-law of the opposite

party No. 2/complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.

2 and 3 being the aunts-in-law of the complainant are in no way connected with the offences

alleged. They reside elsewhere. There is omnibus allegation against the petitioner nos. 2 and

3 who are septuagenarian.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1/State submits that the Case

Diary reveals sufficient material against all the three petitioners. It is pointed out that the

petitioner nos. 2 and 3 would frequently visit the matrimonial home of the complainant.

In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter may

be disposed of with a direction upon the trial Court to expedite the trial considering the fact

that the petitioners are senior citizens and there is no specific allegation of torture against

the petitioner nos. 2 and 3.

I have considered the submissions advanced with reference to the facts and

circumstances of the case. I have also taken note of the fact that the case relates to a

proceeding of the year 2004. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court is directed to

expedite the trial of G.R. Case No. 468 of 2004 and dispose of the case in accordance

with law preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order

without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

The application being C.R.R. 2078 of 2015 is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the trial Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the applicant

upon compliance of requisite formalities.

( Asha Arora, J.)

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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