LAWS(CAL)-2000-9-58

MAYA GANGULY Vs. STATE

Decided On September 29, 2000
Maya Ganguly Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal revisional application under Sections 397/401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the Petitioner Smt. Maya Ganguly and this is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrakpur on Aug. 26, 1991 in G.R. Case No. 2184 of 1988 which arose out of Lake Town P.S. Case No. 1 dated June 2, 1988 under Sections 498A/506/406/323 Indian Penal Code, and under Sec. 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner, a house wife, was in brief that she was leading a happy married life along with her husband, who happened to be an Engineer under the Government of India and her two school going children. But unfortunately this happiness did not last long inasmuch as she has been falsely implicated in G.R. Case No. 2184 of 1988 for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 498A/506/406/323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the de facto complainant-informant Smt. Anuradha Banerjee alias Soma, who set the Criminal law in motion by lodging a written complaint against her husband, parents-in-law and younger sister-in-law making various allegations as to torture, extortion of money, assault etc. In the said written complainant, it was the case of the complainant Smt. Anuradha Banerjee that the marriage between the complainant and Bishnendu Prokash Banerjee was solemnized on May 26, 1984 according to Hindu rites and customs and that out of the wedlock a daughter was born on Aug. 2, 1986. In the written complaint it was alleged by the complainant that her husband, parents-in-law and also younger sister-in-law of the complainant started misbehaving with her and put pressure on her for bringing more money and other valuable articles from the house of her father. The complainant silently suffered such torture and misbehavior with the expectation that things will improve after the birth of the child. But unfortunately the situation was just the reverse. The incident of torture and pressure on her for extorting money continued unabated. It so happened that on May 18, 1988 at about 4 P.M. the husband of the complainant, her parents-in-law and younger sister-in-law drove her out of the matrimonial home with her new born baby after assault, abuses and insulations. The further allegation of the complainant was that the valuable ornaments and other articles worth Rs. 59,279.30 which she got as presentations at the time of her marriage were entrusted on good faith to her husband and parents-in-law, were illegally held back by the said persons concerned and were never returned to her. According to the Petitioner she had no manner of connection with the alleged incident. It was her specific case in revision that she lived at a far away place from the complainant's matrimonial home and was living happily in her own home with her husband and two school-going children. It was again her specific case that she was not named by the complainant in the F.I.R. although she was very much known to the complainant being her another sister-in-law (elder sister-in-law). Again it was her further contention that the instant case in so far as this Petitioner was concerned was a case of glaring abuse of the process of the Court and hence the instant Criminal proceeding against her was liable to be quashed for securing the ends of justice but unfortunately the learned court below failed to appreciate her case and passed the impugned order dated Aug. 26, 1991 in G.R. Case No. 2184 of 1988 whereby the said learned court rejected her prayer for discharging her from this case and fixed a date for framing charges against all the accused persons including the Petitioner. Hence the instant Criminal revisional application by the Petitioner for redressal of her grievances.

(3.) I have had the opportunity of hearing Learned Counsel Shri Dilip Kumar Dutta in the matter at length. None, however, appeared for and on behalf of the State of West Bengal despite intimation given to them.