Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasanta Kumar Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 26 September, 2008
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. NO. 1558 of 2008 Prasanta Kumar Pal Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For Petitioner : Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta
Mr. Amitabha Ganguly
For State : Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Subir Ganguly
Heard On : August 6th, 2008.
Judgment On : 26-09-2008.
The present petitioner who happened to be the husband of the opposite party no. 2 moved the instant criminal revisional application invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the G.R. Case No. 1208/95 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas arising out of Khardah Police Station Case No. 160/95 basically on the grounds, that their marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage passed by a competent court and the opposite party/wife has thereafter re-married one Dr. Milan Ghosh and has been happily leading her new conjugal life.
2. During the hearing of this case, the opposite party/wife has been duly represented by her Learned Lawyer, Mr. Subir Ganguly and was also personally present in court.
3. In connection with this criminal revision a joint compromise petition has been filed by the petitioner and the opposite party/wife supported by affidavits. In the said affidavits it has been categorically stated that the matrimonial dispute and differences between the parties has been settled out of court and they have no grievances against each other. In course of his submission before this court Mr. Ganguly did not dispute any of the contention of Mr. Sengupta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that all dispute and differences between the parties have been settled out of court, the wife/opposite party has got back all her stridhans and she is no longer desirous to proceed with the criminal case instituted on her FIR and ended in the impugned charge-sheet. According to Mr. Ganguly, as the wife/opposite party is no longer inclined to proceed with the case she has no objection if the aforesaid charge-sheet is quashed.
4. Heard Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Monish Sen and Mr. Amitabha Ganguly. Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned advocate, appearing for the State. Mr. Subir Ganguly, the learned advocate, appearing for the opposite party no. 2, the defacto- complainant/wife. Perused the materials on record more particularly the joint compromise petition.
5. In this case it is an admitted position that already the marital tie between the parties have been dissolved by a decree passed by a competent court and the opposite party no. 2 has remarried and leading her conjugal life happily and peacefully. Admittedly, She has already got back all her stridhan properties. The matrimonial dispute and differences between the parties which are purely personal in nature have been settled out of court and in this regard a joint compromise petition has been filed before this Court. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion no useful purpose will be served by keeping the impugned proceeding alive and as the defacto-complainant, i.e. the wife/opposite party is no longer interested to press any further the criminal case brought by her against the petitioner, there would be no chance of ultimate conviction. I am of the further opinion any further continuation of the impugned criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of court and it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the same be quashed.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Harayana & Anr., reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 848 is squarely applicable.
4. For the reasons stated above the instant criminal revisional application stands allowed and the impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1208/95 arising out of Khardah Police Station Case No. 160/95 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code stands quashed.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )