IN RE : GOPAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pertaining to a criminal trial being No. BGR Case No.4004 of 1994 arising out of Metiabruz Police Station Case No. 306 of 1994 under Ss. 498A, 114, 406 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the case. He has prayed for quashing of the proceeding mainly on the ground that there is inordinate delay in concluding the trial and his right to speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been denied. This apart, he has taken a ground that the case was instituted long back in the year 1994. In the year 1996, the accused/petitioner instituted a matrimonial suit being No.48 of 1996 praying for divorce. That matrimonial suit was disposed of on 29.9.1999 on contest and a decree of divorce was passed by the learned Judge at Alipore. The judgment in the Matrimonial Suit was appealed against in F.A.No.271 of 2006 by the opposite party no.2, Smt. Gopa Chakraborty. However, Smt. Gopa Chakraborty filed an application in the High Court expressing her intention not to proceed with the appeal as the matrimonial dispute between them was settled outside the Court. The appeal was dismissed, accordingly, for non -prosecution by this Court on 18.12.2006. The petitioner has taken the ground that the delay in the trial was caused solely because of conduct of the opposite party no.2 who did not even make herself available for further examination and cross -examination despite repeated directions of the learned Trial Court. The Court had to issue warrant of arrest against her and even thereafter, her examination could not be concluded. In the meantime, out of six charge sheeted witnesses, two other witnesses were examined and cross examined in full. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding for the inordinate delay in concluding the trial wherein the opposite party no.2 being the aggrieved party did not act diligently and seriously and contributed to the delay in the proceeding since initiation of the case.

(3.) Before going detail into the matter, it would be expedient to give a short reference to the factual aspects of the case and the background thereto.