SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santipada Muhuri-vs-State on 30 June, 2004

Calcutta High Court Santipada Muhuri-vs-State on 30 June, 2004
Equivalent citations:2004 (4) CHN 303
Bench: G De, S P Mitra


1. Mr. Santipada Muhuri by this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of the order dated 28.4.97 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, district Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Case No. 4/96 arising out of Goalpukur P. S. Case No. 173 dated 23.12.92 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 911 of 1992. By the said order the Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 498A/302 of IPC against Prabir Kumar Muhuri and under Section 498A of the IPC against the present petitioner Santipada Muhuri. Immediately after filing of this application this Court by an order dated 20.6.97 directed service of the application on the opposite party, and ordered that the trial of the accused Santipada Muhuri be separated and the trial against Prabir Kumar Muhuri be proceeded. It was further directed that the trial of Santipada Muhuri in the separate case be stayed till the disposal of this application.

2. In view of the said order dated 20.6.97 the trial against Prabir Kumar Muhuri proceeded and after taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charge under Section 302/498A of IPC against the accused Prabir Kumar Muhuri and he was accordingly sentenced.

3. Against the said order of conviction and sentence the convict Prabir Kumar Muhuri filed an appeal before this Court numbered as C. R. A. No. 172 of 1998.

4. In course of hearing of the said C.R.A. No. 172 of 1998 it was detected that the present application was pending. However, by an order dated 7.5.04 this application was assigned before this Bench for disposal. This Bench in course of hearing of the CRA No. 172 of 1998 took up this application for consideration and by an order dated 19.5.94 directed the Trial Court to inform whether the case against Santipada Muhuri was separated or not. The Trial Court intimated that as the original record was forwarded to this Hon’ble Court in connection with the appeal preferred by the convict Prabir Kumar Muhuri, the record could not be separated in connection with the trial of Santipada Muhuri. Thereafter, this application was also taken up for hearing from 11.6.04 side by side with the hearing of CRA 172/98.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Shyama Das Ghose on 16.12.92 against one Prabir Kumar Muhuri, the SDJM, Islampur by his order dated 16.12.92 directed the Inspector General of Police, C.I.D, Bhowani Bhavan, Calcutta to investigate the case after treating the written complaint as FIR. Accordingly, on receipt of the written complaint Goalpukur P.S. case No. 173 dated 23.12.92 was registered under Section 302/ 498A of IPC against Prabir Kumar Muhuri. But ultimately charge-sheet was filed against Prabir Kumar Muhuri under Section 302/498A IPC and under Section 498A against the present petitioner Santipada Muhuri.

6. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioner argued at length and pointed out that there was no element whatsoever against the present petitioner Santipada Muhuri concerning any offence not to speak of any offence under Section 498A of the IPC. It is also argued that the written complaint was an outcome of detailed discussion amongst the complainant party and their lawyers at least after nineteen days from the date of the alleged incident and eight days after the death of the victim. So it is contended that if the present petitioner had any part to play in the alleged offence under Section 498A of IPC that should have been indicated in the FIR. Since the said important fact has not been included in the FIR it can safely be concluded that the allegation against the present petitioner was an afterthought.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Asimesh Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State contended that when the chargesheet was filed against the present petitioner and charge was framed against him under Section 498A of IPC, it can safely be concluded that there was prima facie case against the present petitioner. It is argued that if the investigation is already concluded by the police and on the basis of which charge was framed, it is not permissible in law to come to a conclusion that there was no material for framing of charge or that there are grounds for quashing of the charge against the present petitioner. Hence, Mr. Goswami, learned A.P.P. has submitted that this application is to be rejected at they very outset.

8. After a careful consideration of the materials on record and submissions made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties, it is to be pointed out that the material collected by the police were thrashed out in the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the trial of

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
MyNation Times Magzine

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


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