1

28.03.2019

CRR 590 of 2019
Ct. No. 29
In the matter of:- Sipra Majumdar …petitioner

Mr. Ayan Basu,
Ms. Ela Sanyal,
Mr. Prabir Das,
Ms. Monika Jaiswal,
Mr. Sumit Routh.

…for the petitioner.

This is an application for quashing of a proceeding where a

charge sheet was submitted under Sections 420 and 498A of the Penal

Code.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

as follows. The petitioner is the aunt in law of the de facto

complainant/opposite party no.2. She resides far away from the matrimonial

home of the de facto complainant. In May, 2001 the opposite party no.2 got

married to the petitioner’s nephew and soon thereafter the couple went

abroad. In December, 2011, the wife came back from the UK purportedly to

present a thesis. Despite repeated requests, she did not return to her

husband. Accordingly, the husband filed a divorce suit in the UK. In June,

2013, the husband was granted divorce by a learned Court in the UK.

Thereafter, as a counter blast on 13th December, 2013, the de facto

complainant/opposite party no.2 lodged the present First Information Report

against the husband and several other in laws including the present

petitioner. After investigation, a final report was submitted against the

husband, the petitioner and some others while a prayer was made seeking

discharge of two other accused. No prima facie case is made out against the

present petitioner as would be evident from a plain reading of the First

Information Report and the charge sheet. Not even a casual reference was

made by the opposite party no.2 in the First Information Report about any

role played by the present petitioner. Any further continuation of the

impugned proceedings shall be an abuse of the process of Court.

I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing on
2

behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition.

Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the State

through the learned Public Prosecutor and upon the opposite party no.2 by

speed post with acknowledgment due, within a week. An affidavit of

service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.

Let this matter appear as a ‘Contested Application’ two weeks

hence.

The impugned proceedings shall remain stayed, so far as the

present petitioner is concerned, for a period of six weeks from this date.

The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension or modification

or vacating of the interim order upon notice to the other side.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to

the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)