SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sadhu Charan @ Sadhuram Ghosh & Ors vs Unknown on 3 April, 2017




C.R.R. 1034 of 2017

In Re: An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the matter of : Sadhu Charan @ Sadhuram Ghosh Ors.

… Petitioners.

Mr. Amajit De.

…for the Petitioners.

Petitioners have prayed for quashing of proceeding in G.R.92

of 2008 arising out of Barabani Police Station Case No.1 dated

15.1.2008 under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code read

with Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been assailed.

It has been argued that the petitioners are in laws of the

opposite party no.2 housewife and there is no allegation against

them in the impugned first information report/charge sheet.

I have perused the impugned first information report. It has

been alleged in the first information report that pursuant to

negotiation, marriage was fixed between one Indrajit Ghosh,

petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no.2 on 25.2.2003. At that

time, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 7 came to the residence of the

opposite party and demanded cash of Rs.2,50,000/- and

threatened if the money was not paid, marriage would be

cancelled. As a result, the father of the opposite party no.2 was

compelled to pay the aforesaid amount. After the marriage, it is

alleged that the petitioners along with the husband Indrajit Ghosh

insisted on a further sum of Rs.50,000/- and as the amount could

not be paid, subjected her to mental and physical torture and

drove her away from the matrimonial home. Repeated efforts were

made for negotiations with the petitioners but such efforts did not

yield any result and finally the opposite party no.2 filed the

impugned petition of complaint.

The allegations in the first information report clearly disclose

demands of dowry and torture upon the opposite party no.2

housewife in connection therewith. It has been argued that such

allegations are out and out false and has been falsely implicated in

the instant case.

I am of the opinion that such issues being factual in nature

require to be agitated before the trial Court in the first place.

Hence, I do not wish to interfere with the impugned proceeding. It

shall be open to the petitioner to agitate all these issues at the

appropriate stage of the proceeding in accordance with law, if so


The revision petition is, thus, disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

shall be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible on

compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

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