498A,406,494,506,323,34 case filed 2009. Even wife’s deposition NOT taken till 2014. Husband runs to HC, HC says go back to trial court !a

498A,406,494,506,323,34 case filed by wife 2009. and that out of eight witnesses named in the charge sheet even the evidence of defacto complainant has not yet been completed till 2014. Husband runs to HC, seeking quash and relief. HC says go back to trial court and once again orders time bound trial !!

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Mr. Anupam Paul. Vs State on 7 March, 2014

Author: Tarun Kumar Gupta

1 3.2014.


C.R.R. No.555 of 2014 Mr. Anupam Paul. (In person). …..For the petitioner.

Mr. Amartya Ghosh. …..For the State.

The petitioner husband has filed this application u/s.401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:-

a) Quashing the BGR Case No.4462/2009 arising out of Maheshtala P.S. Case No.386/2009 u/s.498A/406/ 494/506/323/34 IPC as the same were based on false and fabricated evidence.

b) To take stringent action against the complainant for making false allegation.

c) Giving direction to the appropriate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to give necessary information to the petitioner and also to recommend disciplinary action against the delinquent officer who failed to discharge their duties under said Act of 2005.

Mr. Anupam Paul being petitioner has personally appeared and moved this application. According to him, the O.P. wife lodged a false complaint resulting initiation of the police case which culminated into filing of charge sheet. According to him, said police case should not be permitted to proceed being harassing one and that the complainant should be taken to task for making false allegations. In this connection, the petitioner has referred the case law of Hon’ble Apex Court passed on 19th July, 2005 in connection with (Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

He also submits that in an earlier occasion, he also moved this Court through CRR 724/2013 and that this Court directed ld. trial court to dispose of the trial within a year vide order dated 7th March, 2013 and that out of eight witnesses named in the charge sheet even the evidence of defacto complainant has not yet been completed. He further submits that though he filed necessary application under Right to Information Act, 2005 to the appropriate authority but no satisfactory reply was given for which he had to file an appeal with the appellate authority but again without any tangible result and that necessary direction may be passed from this end on that score.

Mr. Ghosh appearing for the O.P. State submits that the question of quashing the criminal proceeding at this stage does not arise as said prayer was earlier refused by this Court by order dated 7th March, 2013 in CRR 724/2013. He next submits that copies of order sheets of the court below have not been filed to show for whose laches there is delay in disposal of the case. His last contention is that this Court has no determination to pass any order regarding alleged non-compliance of relevant provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

Admittedly, the present petitioner earlier moved this court praying for quashing the pending criminal proceeding through CRR 724/2013. It appears that after hearing this Court was pleased to dismiss said application by the order dated 7th March, 2013. As such, the question of quashing of the pending criminal proceeding which is at the stage of evidence does not arise at this stage. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

However, it appears that at the time of disposing of the said earlier revisional application vide order dated 7th March, 2013 this court directed ld. trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one years from the receipt of the photostat certified copy of the order. There is nothing on record to show when such copy was filed in the trial court. No document was filed to show as to whose fault there is delay in recording the evidence.

If the petitioner is aggrieved with any action/non-action on the part of any authority discharging their duties under relevant provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 then he is at liberto to move appropriate forum. Unfortunately, this Court is not the appropriate forum for ventilating the grievance under RTI Act.

In view of discussion as made above, I am of the opinion that the present revisional application has no merit. However, when there was a direction of disposal of the pending criminal case by the ld. trial court and the period is going to be over very soon, I am of the opinion that the justice will be sub-served if ld. trial court is directed to dispose of the pending criminal case positively within 9 months from the date of communication of the order.

The ld. Judge of the trial court is requested to fix consecutive dates, if required, to comply said time frame. It is reported by the petitioner during submission that the trial court is presently lying vacant. In that case, ld. Judge in Charge of said court should take necessary step for compliance of this order as if the direction was passed upon ld. Judge in Charge of the court.

Before parting with the record, I like to mention the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra) that sometimes the benevolence provisions of 498A are being misused by some unscrupulous persons. But that cannot be a ground to pre-judge the issues in the present matter particularly when the trial has reached the stage of evidence. It goes without saying that the ld. trial court has the authority to take necessary action against the defacto complainant if it is found that she has lodged a false case.

The application is disposed of No order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.

(Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.)

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s