SHYAMALI SINHA Vs. PRADIP KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 9.12.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act.) in Criminal Motion No. 235/96 thereby allowing the criminal motion and setting aside the order dated 11.6.96 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 1906/88.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the wife of opposite party No. 1 and they are not in good terms and there is dispute between the husband and the wife. A matrimonial suit being MAT Suit No. 338 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner and in order to take revenge or harass the petitioner, the husband-opposite party filed the complaint/ FIR a few days after the MAT suit and it was sent to O.C., Chitpur P.S. and on the basis of it Chitpur P.S. Case No. 394 dated 28.10.88 under sections 448/ 323/ 324/ 504/ 506 of IPC was started against this petitioner and others. In the Court it was registered as G.R. Case No. 1906 of 1988. Charge was framed against two accused persons namely Deb Prakash Ghosh and Bishnu Das and no charge was framed against this petitioner Shyamali Sinha. During trial four witnesses were examined from April, 1995 to 20.5.96. Though it was a case of 1988, on 11.6.96 learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application under section 319 of Cr. PC to summon the petitioner as one of the accused, but the learned Magistrate by order dated 11.6.96 rejected the said prayer. Challenging the order of the learned Magistrate the de facto complainant husband, who is opposite party No. 1 in this revisional application, preferred criminal motion in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore and after transfer it was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Judge, Special Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revisional application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law after adding this petitioner as one of the accused persons in the said case.

(3.) He further contended that application under section 319 of Cr. PC after 8 years is belated and cannot be entertained. The statement of the witnesses examined in Court did not reveal any element against this petitioner to show that she took part in the alleged incident to commit any offence. There was no chargesheet against the wife-petitioner and independent witnesses did not utter the name of petitioner. The case is now 16 years old and there is no material at all to summon the petitioner as an accused in this case. In support of his contention he cited a decision in the case of Naser Ali Mirza vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 1999 C Cr LR (Cal) 302.