SHILADITYA BASU Vs. ANKUR BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed by petitioner Shiladitya Basu against the respondent Ankur Basu (nee Dey) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This revisional application has been filed challenging order dated 26.8.2014 in Case No. M.Ex. 85/13 under Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the 4th Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) Contending inter alia, the petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the present predicament of the petitioner and the status of the respondent-wife who is a working lady. It has also been contended that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner mechanically. He has claimed that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. During pendency of the case the petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for addition of nine paragraphs in his original application wherein he has claimed that he paid Rs.75,000/- to the respondent as per order dated 22.9.2014 passed in this case and he made further payment to the respondent. Despite that facts learned Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested on 9.11.2014 and was released on 12.11.2014 upon further payment of Rs.50,000/-. Petitioner has claimed quashing of the proceedings under Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Case No. M.Ex. 85/13 in the Court below.

(3.) In this case scope of determination is very limited to legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order. On going through the certified copy of impugned order it appears to me that before passing the impugned order distress warrant was issued against the present petitioner for realisation of arrear maintenance allowance claimed by the respondent. The execution report of the distress warrant was received by the learned Court below where it was reported that there was no seizure of any property of the present petitioner for realisation of the claimed arrear maintenance allowance of the respondent. Under such circumstances, learned Court below passed the impugned order for issuing warrant of arrest. Said order appears to me as very much legal and, therefore, it needs no interference. Consequently, the revisional application stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Be it noted that if the entire claimed arrear maintenance allowance be realised by the respondent then on being satisfied it is the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore to recall the warrant of arrest and it shall be done by the learned Magistrate.