Luna Das(Mondal) v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Calcutta HC25 Jan 2024CRR/1134/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta HC quashes husband-initiated Sections 193/197/199 IPC false-evidence proceeding against wife arising from a Section 125 CrPC maintenance dispute (Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 / T.R. 762 of 2016); ingredients absent, malice per Bhajan Lal clause 7 of Para 102; reliance on Ramesh Chandra Gupta 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993; CRR 1134 of 2019, judgment 25.01.2024, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul).

What did the court decide?

CRR 1134 of 2019 allowed; proceeding Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 (T.R. 762 of 2016) quashed in respect of the petitioner; connected applications (if any) disposed of; interim order, if any, vacated. ¶115

Luna Das(Mondal) Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CRR 1134 of 2019 allowed; proceeding Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 (T.R. 762 of 2016) quashed in respect of the petitioner; connected applications (if any) disposed of; interim order, if any, vacated.

¶115

Issue for consideration

Whether the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 193/197/199 IPC are constituted in respect of the petitioner in the proceeding Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016. +3 more

¶86

Court's answer

The ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 193/197/199 IPC are clearly absent in respect of the petitioner.

¶86

Ratio / Principle

The statements at paragraph 6 of the petition of complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 are not correct, since the complainant himself admitted on oath (deposition at page 40 of the revisional application) that the petitioner had filed a criminal case under Sections 498A/406 IPC.

¶45

Key takeaways

The allegation that the petitioner concealed her employment as a teacher lacks support: the complainant did not file any documents in support of his prayer that she is a teacher, the point was held to be one to be decided during trial (his prayer having been dismissed), and the amendment disclosing her teacher status in the Section 125 application remains pending, his prayer for rejection of that application having been rejected by the trial and revisional courts.ratio¶48
The case was made only out of grudge and vengeance against the separated wife, who had initiated proceedings under Section 498A IPC and claimed maintenance; the petitioner's case clearly comes under clause 7 of Para 102 in Bhajan Lal, making it a fit case for exercise of the Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice.ratio¶114

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), CRR 1134 of 2019, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), judgment on 25.01.2024 — Quashing. A proceeding Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 (T.R. 762 of 2016) under Sections 193/197/199 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, instituted during the pendency of the wife-petitioner's Section 125 CrPC maintenance application (S.C. No. 429 of 2014) by her estranged husband's complaint under Section 200 read with Sections 340/195(1)(a)/195(1)(b) CrPC alleging false statements, is quashed in respect of the petitioner. The complainant's sworn deposition admitted the petitioner had filed a Sections 498A/406 IPC case, disproving paragraph 6 of his complaint; no documents supported his teacher/income allegation (left to trial; amendment pending in ACM 429/14); the ingredients of Sections 193/197/199 offences were found absent, the case having been made 'only out of grudge and vengeance' against the separated wife — falling under clause 7 of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal. Relying on Ramesh Chandra Gupta (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993), which channels Vineet Kumar, Muniswamy and Neeharika, the Court exercised its inherent powers, allowed the revision and quashed the proceeding qua petitioner; interim orders stood vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶2

(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

Present:

¶5

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

¶6

CRR 1134 of 2019

¶7

Luna Das (Mondal)

¶8

¶9

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayanta Kr. Biswas, Ms. Tanuja Sarkar.

¶11

For the State : None.

¶12

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. C. Das, Mr. Altaf Hossain.

¶13

Hearing concluded on : 11.01.2024

¶14

Judgment on : 25.01.2024

¶15

¶16

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

¶17

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 (T.R. 762 of 2016) under Sections 193/197/199 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10^th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

¶18

2. FACTS:-

¶19

The petitioner states that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 got married following Hindu rites and rituals on 10.05.2004.

¶20

3. Out of the said wedlock a female child and a male child were born on 23.03.2007 and 16.11.2009 respectively.

¶21

4. As the petitioner was subjected to torture in her matrimonial home by the inmates which became unbearable, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and lodge an complaint with the Bishnupur Police Station against the opposite party no. 2 and others.

¶22

5. Said First Information Report gave rise to Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 141 of 2013 dated 16.03.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no.2 and others.

¶23

6. The Investigating Agency in course of investigation, searched the house of the opposite party no.2 and seized certain articles from his house after preparing a proper seizure list dated 16.03.2014 as complained of.

¶24

¶25

7. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being S.C. No. 429 of 2014 praying for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 15,000/-for her minor children.

¶26

8. During the pendency of the said application, the opposite party no.2/husband filed an application in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas being Misc. Case No. C-48 of 2016 under Section 200 read with Sections 340/195(1)(a)/195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 193/197/199 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

¶27

9. The petitioner states that the order passed by Learned Magistrate asking the petitioner to appear before the Learned Court on the basis of the application filed by the opposite party no. 2 and the deposition thereof is devoid of any reasoning indicating satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate.

¶28

10. Hence the revision.

¶29

11. The case as made out in the petition of complaint by the opposite

¶30

party no. 2 herein, is that it appears from the application U/sec 125 Cr.P.C. along with ad-interim maintenance application that the petitioner herein/wife served, contained false statements made with an ulterior motive for her illegal gain, knowing fully well that all those statements are false.

¶31

¶32

12. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite party therein/wife made a statement in Para 6 of the said application, as follows:-

¶33

“The petitioner/wife had already filed an application under Section 498A I.P.C. and the opposite party/husband and his in-laws are now on bail and that police has already filed charge sheet against them.”

¶34

13. It is further stated that the opposite party/wife made all those false statements knowing fully well that there is no such case pending against the petitioner/husband and others. And if there was any such case pending then she should have disclosed and/or submitted the case number to the Ld. Court.

¶35

14. It is also stated that the opposite party/wife also made a statement in Para 7 of her said application that:-

¶36

“The petitioner/wife now reside in her father‟s house since the said incident, facing financial crisis and has no sufficient income to maintain herself and her two male child.”

¶37

15. It is thus stated in the complaint that, the opposite party/wife made all those false statements regarding her income, with an ulterior motive for her illegal gain, as she is a school teacher of Amtala Nevadita Balika Vidyalaya (H.S.) and presently gets a salary of Rs. 35,000/- or more per month.

¶38

16. The complainant also states that the opposite party/wife also has an illegitimate male child, and knowing fully well that said male child is not the petitioner’s child but with an ulterior motive, the opposite party/wife

¶39

¶40

also claimed maintenance for her illegitimate male child from the petitioner.

¶41

17. It is further stated in the complaint that the opposite party/wife made many false statements as well as false affidavit before the Ld. Court with an ulterior motive for her illegal gain knowing fully well that she concealed the truth. As such it was stated that she has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 193 I.P.C.

¶42

18. That as the opposite party/wife has made all those false statements before the Ld. Court suppressing the truth with an intention to obstruct justice, it was alleged that the opposite party committed offences punishable under Sections 193/197/199 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶43

19. FINDINGS:-

¶44

On hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, it appears that the deposition of the opposite party no. 2 herein/complainant is at page 40 to the revisional application and there in, on oath, he has admitted that his wife/the petitioner herein has filed a criminal case under Sections 498A/406 of I.P.C. Thus it appears that

¶45

the statements at paragraph 6 of the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is not correct.

¶46

20. The order in Criminal Motion 15/2022 dated 19.07.2023, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 18^th Court, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, also notes the registration of a case under Section 498A of I.P.C.

¶47

¶48

21. The Court also dismissed the prayer of the opposite party no.2/husband herein by holding that he did not file any documents in support of his prayer that the petitioner/wife herein is a teacher and that the said matter was to be decided during trial.

¶49

22. From the orders dated 23.02.2017 and 18.05.2017 in ACM 429/14 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10^th Court, Alipore, it appears that the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner has admitted that she is a teacher but as it had not been mentioned in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an amendment was sought to be made and the said petition for amendment is pending.

¶50

23. The opposite party no. 2/husband also prayed for rejection of the said application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the said ground and the same was rejected by the trial and also the revisional Court on the findings that the said matter was subject to trial.

¶51

24. The present case has been registered against the petitioner/wife under Sections 193/197/199 of I.P.C. on the basis of a complaint filed by opposite party no. 2/husband herein.

¶52

25. Section 193 I.P.C., lays down:-

¶53

“ 193. Punishment for false evidence.- Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

¶54

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with

¶55

¶56

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶57

Explanation 1.– A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.

¶58

Explanation 2.–An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.

¶59

Explanation 3.- An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.

¶60

Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 193 are as follows:-

¶61

(1) The accused was legally bound to state the truth either by an oath or an express provision of law;

¶62

(2) The accused made the declaration in question;

¶63

(3) Such declaration or statement was made in a stage of judicial proceeding;

¶64

(4) The statement or declaration so made was false;

¶65

(5) The accused knew it to be false or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true;

¶66

(6) The accused made such false statement intentionally.”

¶67

26. Section 197 I.P.C., lays down:-

¶68

“ 197. Issuing or signing false certificate.- Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

¶69

Ingredients of offence. - The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 197 are as follows:-

¶70

(1) The accused issued or signed a certificate;

¶71

(2) Such certificate was required in law to be issued or signed;

¶72

¶73

(3) It related to admission of a fact;

¶74

(4) It is legally admissible in evidence;

¶75

(5) The certificate is false on material particulars;

¶76

(6) The accused knew or had reason to believe that it was false.”

¶77

27. Section 199 I.P.C., lays down:-

¶78

“ 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.- Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching upon any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

¶79

Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 199 are as follows:-

¶80

(1) Accused made or superscribed a declaration;

¶81

(2) A Court, public servant or other person was bound or authorised by law to receive such declaration in evidence; (3) Accused made a statement in such declaration;

¶82

(4) Such statement was false;

¶83

(5) Such statement was material to the object for which the declaration was made;

¶84

(6) Accused knew that it was false.”

¶85

28. CONCLUSION:-

¶86

On careful perusal of the materials on record and the discussion made earlier in this order, it is evident that the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are clearly absent in respect of the petitioner here in and the said case appears to have been made,

¶87

only out of grudge and vengeance against his (separated) wife who

¶88

¶89

has not only initiated proceedings under Section 498A I.P.C. but

¶90

also claimed maintenance.

¶91

29. In Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993, Criminal Appeal No(s). ……… of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 39 of 2022), the Supreme Court

¶92

held:-

¶93

“ 15. This Court has an occasion to consider the ambit and scope of the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings in Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , (2017) 13 SCC 369 decided on 31st March, 2017. It may be useful to refer to paras 22, 23 and 41 of the above judgment where the following was stated:

¶94

“22. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC vested in the High Court. Section 482 CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

¶95

23. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated :

¶96

„7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and

¶97

¶98

criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.‟

¶99

41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which is to the following effect :

¶100

„102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.‟ Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the

¶101

¶102

present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.”

¶103

16. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335 as under :

¶104

“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶105

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶106

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶107

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶108

¶109

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶110

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶111

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶112

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶113

17. The principles culled out by this Court have consistently been followed in the recent judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315 .”

¶114

30. The petitioner’s case clearly comes under clause 7 of Para 102 in Bhajan Lal (Supra) and as such, this is a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and also in the interest of justice.

¶115

31. CRR 1134 of 2019 is thus allowed.

¶116

32. The proceeding being Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 (T.R. 762 of 2016) under Sections 193/197/199 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the

¶117

¶118

Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10^th Court, Alipore, South 24

¶119

Parganas, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner.

¶120

33. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶121

34. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶122

35. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

¶123

36. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.

¶124

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 193/197/199 IPC are constituted in respect of the petitioner in the proceeding Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016.¶86
The court held
The ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 193/197/199 IPC are clearly absent in respect of the petitioner.ratio¶86
2.
Whether the complaint's assertion that the petitioner falsely denied a pending case under Section 498A IPC against the husband was itself incorrect.¶45
The court held
The statements at paragraph 6 of the petition of complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 are not correct, since the complainant himself admitted on oath (deposition at page 40 of the revisional application) that the petitioner had filed a criminal case under Sections 498A/406 IPC.ratio¶45
3.
Whether the petitioner's statements in the Section 125 application regarding her income/employment (school teacher drawing c. Rs. 35,000/- per month) were false, given her admitted teacher status disclosed through a pending amendment and the complainant's failure to produce supporting documents.medium confidence¶49
The court held
The allegation that the petitioner concealed her employment as a teacher lacks support: the complainant did not file any documents in support of his prayer that she is a teacher, the point was held to be one to be decided during trial (his prayer having been dismissed), and the amendment disclosing her teacher status in the Section 125 application remains pending, his prayer for rejection of that application having been rejected by the trial and revisional courts.ratio¶48
4.
Whether the proceeding was maliciously instituted with ulterior motive/out of grudge and vengeance, attracting Category 7 of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal and warranting quashing.¶87
The court held
The case was made only out of grudge and vengeance against the separated wife, who had initiated proceedings under Section 498A IPC and claimed maintenance; the petitioner's case clearly comes under clause 7 of Para 102 in Bhajan Lal, making it a fit case for exercise of the Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice.ratio¶114

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Pending proceeding Misc. Case No. 48 of 2016 (T.R. 762 of 2016) under Sections 193/197/199 of the Indian Penal Code, initiated during pendency of the petitioner's Section 125 CrPC application by the application/complaint of opposite party no. 2 (husband) under Section 200 read with Sections 340/195(1)(a)/195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (filed as Misc. Case No. C-48 of 2016 before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore), alleging false statements by the petitioner in her maintenance application; challenged for quashing.¶17
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas
Prior proceeding
Petitioner and opposite party no. 2 married following Hindu rites and rituals on 10.05.2004; a female child and a male child were born of the wedlock on 23.03.2007 and 16.11.2009 respectively.¶19
Prior proceeding
After leaving the matrimonial home amid alleged torture, the petitioner lodged a complaint with Bishnupur Police Station; the FIR gave rise to Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 141 of 2013 dated 16.03.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against opposite party no. 2 and others.¶22
Prior proceeding
In course of investigation the Investigating Agency searched the house of opposite party no. 2 and seized certain articles, preparing a seizure list dated 16.03.2014.¶23
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed an application under Section 125 CrPC (S.C. No. 429 of 2014) claiming maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 15,000/- for her minor children.¶25
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the Section 125 application, opposite party no. 2/husband filed the complaint application before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas (Misc. Case No. C-48 of 2016) seeking action for alleged offences under Sections 193/197/199 IPC by the petitioner.¶8
Prior proceeding
An order of the Learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner on the basis of opposite party no. 2's application; the petitioner states the order and the deposition thereof lack reasoning indicating the Magistrate's satisfaction.¶9
Prior proceeding
In his deposition (at page 40 of the revisional application) the complainant, on oath, admitted that his wife/the petitioner had filed a criminal case under Sections 498A/406 IPC.¶44
Prior proceeding
Order in Criminal Motion 15/2022 dated 19.07.2023, passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 18th Court, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, noted registration of a case under Section 498A IPC and dismissed opposite party no. 2's prayer, as he filed no documents supporting his claim that the petitioner is a teacher, the matter being left to be decided during trial.¶46
Prior proceeding
Orders dated 23.02.2017 and 18.05.2017 in ACM 429/14 (before the Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore): petitioner's advocate admitted she is a teacher, though not mentioned in the Section 125 application; an amendment petition was sought and remains pending.¶49
Prior proceeding
Opposite party no. 2's prayer for rejection of the Section 125 application on the ground of undisclosed teacher-status was rejected by the trial court and also by the revisional court, on the findings that the matter was subject to trial.¶50

Luna Das(Mondal) v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Luna Das(Mondal) v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk Sanowar Ali Vs Jahanara Begum

Purnima Bairia@Purnima Soni Bairia & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

M/S Tarunika Gaur Housing and Construction Ltd. & Ors. Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Brijendra Kumar Kedia Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Anirban Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Atanu Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal