Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 149 (CAL)

Sanjay Kumar Das v. State Of West Bengal

2020-02-06

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 406 and 498A of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. After getting information about the exparte order of judicial separation, the de facto complainant/wife filed the present case falsely implicating the accused/petitioners. After being pointed out, he corrects himself and submits that it was after learning about the filing of the case for judicial consideration that a false FIR was lodged by the de facto complainant. He submits that no prima facie case is made out as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report. That apart, an order of judicial consideration was decreed exparte in 2017 against the de facto complainant/wife. No prior GD Entry was lodged in this regard and the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay from the date of occurrence. It is further submitted that a GD Entry was earlier lodged in respect of the matrimonial dispute against the wife. 3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition. 4. I have perused the First Information Report and the charge sheet annexed with the revision petition. From a plain reading of the First Information Report, it appears that the de facto complainant/victim lady lodged a First Information Report on 22.08.2016 and she mentioned in the First Information Report that on that date at about 12 p.m. the accused/petitioners assaulted her and tried to put her on fire by sprinkling kerosene. Somehow, she managed to escape. As such, there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. 5. After a full-fledged investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners. 6. The defence plea raised by the petitioner about lodging prior GD Entry and about the innocence of the present petitioners are all disputed questions of fact and cannot gone into at this stage. 7. Moreover, the proceeding in the criminal case is quite distinct from the proceeding that had taken place in respect of the matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge in MAT Suit No.1978 of 2016. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application. 7. Moreover, the proceeding in the criminal case is quite distinct from the proceeding that had taken place in respect of the matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge in MAT Suit No.1978 of 2016. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.