Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 999 (CAL)

Bibhuti Sarkar v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-11-11

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Joy Sengupta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 herein. 2. Invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner moved this application for quashing of the chargesheet under section 376/417/325 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the aforesaid chargesheet is an outcome of a First Information Report lodged to the police by the opposite party No.2 herein alleging that she had a love affairs with the petitioner herein and during the continuation of their such love, the petitioner induced her to cohabit with him on a promise to marry. It is further alleged that due to such cohabitation, she became pregnant but when the said fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner, he asked her to go for abortion and as complainant reminded her about her promise, the petitioner allegedly assaulted her. He further submitted that the said First Information Report was lodged on 14th of December, 2007, whereas, the parties married each other on 14th December, 2007. 3. It is submitted both by Mr. Ganguly and Mr. Bhattacharjee that after marriage, both the petitioner and the opposite party are living happily as husband and wife and leading their conjugal life. It is one of the submissions of Mr. Ganguly that the complaint was made against the petitioner basically on the allegation that he refused to marry the opposite party No.2. But as the marriage, soon thereafter, has been solemnised, she could not have any actual grievance against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that it is true that marriage has been solemnised and, in fact, the complainant has no grievance against the petitioner who is happened to be her husband and he further submitted that simply because he refused to marry her, the First Information Report was lodged. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the opposite party No.2 is no longer desirous to proceed with this case and, therefore, there will be no chance that this criminal case would reach to its logical conclusion. 5. Mr. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the opposite party No.2 is no longer desirous to proceed with this case and, therefore, there will be no chance that this criminal case would reach to its logical conclusion. 5. Mr. Joy Sengupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, in his usual fairness, submitted before this Court that it is an admitted position she lodged the complaint as the petitioner refused to marry her and as now they have been married within a few days after lodging of the complaint, the State is not standing on the way to disturb the matrimonial harmony. He further submitted that the complainant herself is not inclined to proceed with this case and thus there will be no chance of ultimate conviction and no useful purpose will be served to keep this proceeding alive. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered the materials on record as well as their respective submissions. 7. It is an admitted position that there was a love affairs between the petitioner and the de facto complainant of the case and after she conceived, as the petitioner refused to marry her, First Information Report was lodged to the police. But within a few days, the parties have married each other and consequent thereupon, they are happily leading their conjugal life and the complainant is not desirous to proceed with her complaint. 8. In such view of the matter and for ends of justice, it would be expedient not to permit the prosecution of the petitioner in the aforesaid case to continue any further which would, in my opinion, would bring out a situation that would amount to a complete abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, to prevent the abuse of process of Court, and top of everything, for ends of justice, I feel, this is a fit case where this Court should interfere. Hence, this application succeeds and the impugned chargesheet stands quashed. 9. The criminal revisional application thus stands disposed of. 10. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. Appeal disposed of.