Disposed

Surajit Joardar and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC19 Sept 2022CRR/2179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed C.R.R. to quash criminal case under Section 498A IPC. Court held such case cannot be quashed due to complainant's loss of interest but directed trial court to examine witnesses within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Trial Court to examine all charge sheeted witnesses within six months from the date of communication of the order.

Surajit Joardar and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and… — Quashing and FIR | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

19.9.2022 S.D. 12.

¶2

C.R.R. 2179 of 2022

¶3

Surajit Joardar & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶4

Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty

¶5

…For the petitioners.

¶6

The petitioners are the accused persons in connection with Barasat Police Station Case No. 1739 of 2011 under Section 498A/323/34 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4266 of 2011.

¶7

The instant revision is filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the aforesaid criminal case.

¶8

Leaned advocate for the petitioners submits as follows:-

¶9

Opposite party no. 2/the defacto-complainant filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the said application and consequent order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, FIR Case No. 1739 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner being the husband and other matrimonial relations. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners.

¶10

It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that in the meantime, the defacto-complainant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage being Matrimonial Suit No. 88 of 2012. The said suit was decreed ex parte. However, after the marital status of the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 was savoured, the opposite party no.

¶11

¶12

2 is not inclined to take any step in the aforesaid criminal case and as the opposite party no. 2 is not interested to proceed with the aforesaid criminal case, the same may be quashed.

¶13

The above noted case was instituted on the basis of police report. The opposite party no. 2/defacto-complainant is a witness in the said case. Therefore, a criminal case instituted a police report cannot be quashed at the instance of the petitioners on the ground that the defactocomplainant has lost interest to proceed with the case.

¶14

However, the instant revision is disposed of directing the Trial Court to take effective steps to examine all the charge sheeted witnesses within six months from the date of communication of this order.

¶15

The petitioners are at liberty to act on the server copy downloaded

¶16

from the official website of this Court.

¶17

( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )

Surajit Joardar and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajit Joardar and Ors. v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasim-Uddin Mallick Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Nazrul Islam Vs State of West Bengal

Partha Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Palak Agarwal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Devesh Sonthalia and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sourabh Adhikari Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.