CRR 401 of 2017
Tarun Kumar Mondal
The State of West Bengal anr.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee,
… for the petitioner.
Mr. S. Mahapatra,
Mr. Dhananjan Banerjee,
…for the O. P. no.2.
Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee,
…for the State.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
who contended that the FIR does not speak of any ingredient regarding
the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. He has categorically stated
that in the FIR it has been mentioned by the de facto complainant that
the present petitioner has married somebody in the meantime. He further
stated that in spite of that the I.O. did not find anything and submitted
charge sheet only under Section 498A of the IPC.
Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary. From the
Case Diary, it appears that the relations of the private opposite party
no.2 has made some statements that there was demand of some dowry,
but in the FIR there is no reflection about the demand of dowry. This
apart, those witnesses residing at Halisahar where the private opposite
party no.2, after marriage had been residing initially at Canning under
the South 24 Parganas and thereafter shifted to Mumbai.
Therefore, there is no element of Section 498A of the IPC so far as
explanation (a) and (b) are concerned of that Section, which are quoted
Explanation – for the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman whether such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and since no
case is made out u/s 498A IPC, this Court has no option left with except
to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the proceeding being G.R. case no. 1282 of 2016
stands quashed in respect of the petitioner.
The CRR stands allowed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given
to the parties.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )