HABIB AHMED Vs. SARMISTHA GON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the orders dated 11.12.2008 (so far as it relates to relevancy of the result of Matrimonial Suit No.29 of 1999 etc.), 13.01.2009, 18.02.2009, 20.03.2009 and 28.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Arambag, Hooghly in C.R. Case No.245 of 1999.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this application in brief are that the petitioner was married to the opposite party no.1 on November 26, 1996 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Thereafter the opposite party no.1 stayed in the house of the petitioner but she came back after taking jewellery and valuable articles. Then she developed intimacy with the opposite party no.2 and their marriage was solemnised on September 18, 1997. For that reason, the petitioner filed a complaint case against the opposite party nos.1 and 2 under Sections 494/34406/420/120(B) of the I.P.C. before the learned S. D. J. M., Arambag, Hooghly. At one point of time, the case ended in acquittal and the petitioner preferred an appeal. Thereafter, the order of acquittal was set aside and now the case is pending at the stage of recording evidence. But the concerned Magistrate was making delay in proceeding / conducting the case and he directed the petitioner to produce the final order of the Matrimonial Suit No.29 of 1999 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore. In the meantime, the petitioner moved the Honble Court by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for early disposal of the criminal case and the Honble Justice P. N. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) directed to dispose of the said criminal case within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order dated December 16, 2005. In spite of that, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate is making delay in the disposal of the case on the ground that the results of the Matrimonial Suit No.29 of 1999 have not been produced before the learned Trial Court. So this case for direction to expedite the completion of the trial of the said criminal case.

(3.) Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perusing the materials on record, I find that the criminal case is pending for quite a long time. Honble Justice P. N. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case within four months from the date of communication of the order dated December 16, 2005. In spite of such fact, the case is pending for a long period on the ground that the results of the said Matrimonial Suit have not been brought by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate.