Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
CRR-3709-2017 on 8 February, 2018
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1 14 08.02.2018 Sandip Court No.08 CRR 3709 of 2017 In Re : Tarun Kumar Mondal ... petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee ...... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia,
Mr. Kushagra Shah,
Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra ... For the O.P.
By this application the petitioner seeks to quash the Complaint Case No. 150 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore and all other orders passed in connection therewith.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was filed in Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 95 on 27th February, 2016 under Sections 498A and 494 IPC. Investigation started and charge- sheet was submitted on 21st July, 2016 under Section 498A IPC. C.R.R. 401 of 2017 was filed and was quashed by order dated 13th September, 2017. On the date of hearing the petitioner had categorically stated that in FIR No. 95/16 dated 27th February, 2016 it was mentioned by the de facto complainant that the petitioner had married somebody during the pendency of C.R.R. 401 of 2017 and in spite of such statement made the I.O. did not investigate further instead submitted charge-sheet No. 169 dated 30th June, 2016. According to counsel for the petitioner prior to charge-sheet being submitted a complaint being No. 150 of 2017 2 was filed in April, 2017 and although counsel for the opposite party came to know of the charge-sheet filed was entitled to file a Naraji petition. The charge-sheet dated 30th June, 2016 was stayed by an interim measure by order dated 13.02.2017 and FIR No. 95 of 2016 was quashed by order dated 13th September, 2017. In view of the facts above therefore the Complaint Case No. 150 of 2017 be quashed.
Counsel for the opposite party submits that FIR No. 95 of 2016 was filed under Sections 498A and 494 IPC and the opposite party on 27th February, 2016 intimated the I.O. that the petitioner had remarried a lady. As no step was taken she was compelled to file Complaint Case No. 150 of 2017 and a report under Section 202 (1) CrPC was filed on 31st August, 2017. It is true that after the said report was filed the charge-sheet was quashed on 13th September, 2017. In fact an enquiry had been made and it was known that the petitioner had married for the second time and was staying elsewhere but the local people did not open their mouth in this regard on examination. The charge- sheet was quashed as no materials of Section 498A IPC could be found, but the I.O. did not make an attempt to make an investigation in respect of the offence under Section 494 IPC. Therefore, this application warrants no order and be dismissed. Reliance is placed on (2015) 8 SCC 286.
3
In reply, counsel for the petitioner submits that (2015) 8 SCC 286 is distinguishable on facts as it was a case of Sections 376, 493 and 494 IPC and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are various decisions in respect of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but this will not apply to the facts of this instant case.
Having considered the submissions of the parties. An FIR was filed on 27th February, 2016 under Sections 498A and 494 IPC. Investigation culminated in C.S. No. 169 dated 30th June, 2016, under Section 498A IPC, so far so good. Before the charge-sheet was submitted on 30th June, 2016 a complaint case was filed on 26th April, 2017. In fact on 27th February, 2016 itself that is when the FIR was filed the opposite party informed the Officer-in-Charge, Bizpore Police Station that the petitioner was residing with a lady, named Rupa Halder, C/o, Debobrata Halder and the two were residing together. Undoubtedly, this letter dated 27th February, 2016 was received. It is quite possible that based on the said letter dated 27th February, 2016 the FIR was also filed, but it is not known why the offence of Section 494 IPC which was added in the FIR dated 27th February, 2016 was dropped in the charge-sheet dated 30th June, 2016 and all that the opposite party was aggrieved by was the ingredient of Section 494 IPC and the same be investigated. It 4 was only because of this that Complaint Case No. 150 of 2017 was initiated. An enquiry was made by the I.C., Bizpore P.S. and a report under Section 202 (1) CrPC was also filed. A secret enquiry was made and on the basis of the secret enquiry it was found that the petitioner had married for the second time and was staying elsewhere but the local people inspite of examination did not open their mouth. Therefore, the secret enquiry cannot be ignored but in fact the authorities should have investigated the offence under Section 494 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner in his flamboyant way has tried to give a go-bye to Section 494 IPC, but the court cannot ignore the importance of Section 494 IPC. The said complaint was filed and all that the authority had to do was to investigate into such offence but to preempt an enquiry under the Complaint Case No. 150 of 2017 is not warranted. It is only because of this that this application cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.
(2015) 8 SCC 286 need not be considered in the facts of this case.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Patherya, J.) 5