HIMABANTA BANDOPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner accused that the Petitioner met the opposite party No. 2 namely Kajal Bandopadhyay (nee De) in the year 1992 when both the Petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were lecturers of Vidyasagar University, Medinipur, and they had a love affair between them. The opposite party No. 2 is the legally, married wife of the Petitioner and their marriage took place on 5th March, 1993 as per the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage registrar Anta Bagchi. Out of their wedlock a male child Ananyo was born to them on 21.6.1994. Soon after marriage Petitioner realised that the opposite party No. 2 is devoid of love and affection towards her husband and other family members and deliberately used to avoid to perform or discharge her legal and marital duty towards them, after which the Petitioner shifted to a rented accommodation in 1995, but the opposite party No. 2 had a habit of leaving her matrimonial house without informing anybody and staying at her parental home. Finally on 28th June, 1995, the Petitioner was forced to leave his house under constraint threat, pressure, torture and humiliation caused by the opposite party No 2. Thereafter on 28.7.2006 the opposite party filed a petition of complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, with the allegation or illicit relationship of the Petitioner with his students namely Chandana Saha and Papaiya Maity and neglecting and mentally torturing the opposite party No. 2 and her minor son and with further allegation that on 18.6.2005 the Petitioner entered into matrimony with one Parama Chatterjee. On the basis of the said complaint of the opposite party No. 2 case No. C/670/2006 under Sections 494/498A was initiated and cognizance was taken on the aforesaid bald allegations. So the Petitioner filed this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the said proceeding setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that the same and cognizance were bad in law and the present proceeding is nothing but a gross abuse of process of Court and is barred by the law of limitation and there was no material for taking cognizance and there was no application of judicial mind for passing the said order.

(3.) The Petitioner Parama Chatterjee also filed an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which has been registered as CRR No. 3262 of 2006 against State of West Bengal and the opposite party No. 2, Kajal De praying for quashing of the proceeding in complaint case No. C/670/2006 under Section 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, against the Petitioner and for setting aside of the impugned order dated 28.7.2006 on the ground that in pursuance of summons issued against her she appeared before the Court of learned Magistrate and was enlarged on bail on 4.9.2006, but the allegations as levelled against her in the said complaint are wholly baseless and untrue, and the proceeding initiated by the opposite party No. 2 is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court at the behest of the malicious prosecutor who seeks to wreak personal vengeance. The entire proceeding initiated by the opposite party No. 2 is wholly illegal and bad in law and cognizance taken on the complaint required application of judicial mind and the said proceeding is liable to be quashed.