Dismissed

Monika Bhattacharjee and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC5 Jul 2022CRR/1337/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed restoration of CRAN 1 of 2022 after accepting explanation for non-appearance. Dismissed revision application seeking quash of Section 498A, holding that contradictions in maintenance applications do not justify quashing of FIR.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of CRAN 1 of 2022 allowed; revision application CRR 1337 of 2021 disposed of.

Monika Bhattacharjee and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

6 05.07.2022 Ct.21 AKG

¶2

CRR 1337 of 2021 With CRAN 1 of 2022

¶3

In Re: - An application under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of: Monika Bhattacharjee & Ors.

¶6

…. Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Moloy Dhar, Mr. Biswajit Sarkar …For the Petitioners Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee …For the Opposite Party No. 2

¶8

In Re : CRAN 1 of 2022

¶9

This is an application for restoration.

¶10

Having regard to the averments made in the application, I am of the view that the reasons for non-appearance of the learned advocate for the petitioners on June 7, 2022, have been sufficiently explained.

¶11

Accordingly, CRAN 1 of 2022 is allowed.

¶12

In Re : CRR 1337 of 2021

¶13

Petitioners seek to quash a proceeding under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Murshidabad Police Station No. 405/2018 dated July 3, 2018, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalbagh, Murshidabad.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are read with the

¶15

¶16

statements of the victim wife in her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it will be apparent that there are several contradictions with regard to the demand of dowry and the presence of the accused on the date of the alleged incident.

¶17

I am of the opinion that the said alleged contradictions cannot be a ground for quashing the present proceeding. In an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before a Civil Court or before a Criminal Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a wife requires to plead that she has no independent income to support herself and the negligence on the part of husband to maintain her. The relevant F.I.R. discloses the cognizable offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Those statements made in the applications for maintenance cannot be termed as a piece of evidence to be looked into for quashing an F.I.R.

¶18

With this observation, this revisional application being CRR 1337 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶19

Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶20

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Monika Bhattacharjee and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Bhattacharjee and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pabitra Samanta & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sandip Mandal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Debasis Singha Roy Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Avijit Mukherjee@Avijit Mukhopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Dr. Kumud Ranjan Biswas & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Monika Bhattacharjee and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.