SAMIR DHAR Vs. RAMA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is more of a sacred bond between the Hindu couples. Rose and roses all the way, sweet all the moments, sweeter at home but outside home sometime awaits unspeakable, for example at modem work places. The female spouse remains busy as house wife at home unaware about easy exposure to and conduct of her male partner with female co-worker and the likes. Unusually, sometime there grows something unholy. By the time the lady at home came to know about it, it is too late for retrieval. The man outside the home has already forgotten the once much adored sacred bond to live with till the last breath and beyond. Similar thing befell on the present Respondent No. 1, housewife who approached the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala with a complaint registered as C.R. Case No. 125/2004 against her husband, present Petitioner, alleging that during subsistence of marriage with her he has married another woman Smti Piyali Choudhury, accused No. 2 on 9-5-2005 and committed a cognizable offence punishable under Section 494, IPC. Taking cognizance of the case, the learned trial Court issued summons to the present Petitioner. On his appearance, the learned trial Court framed charge on 28-5-2005 against the Petitioner under Section 494, IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial.

(2.) In her complaint petition, the Respondent cited three names as witnesses to bring home the charge. The complainant examined herself and got cross-examined. Besides her, two other witnesses were also examined and cross-examined as witnesses. She produced one unlisted witness, Smti Basanti Das on 15-7-2005 but due to serious objection of the accused-Petitioner, she could not be examined. The learned Counsel for the complaint prayed for and was granted adjournment till 22-7-2005 to place the decision. Even she filed a petition on 22-7-2005 for re-examination of P.W. 1. The date was fixed on 28-7-2005 for hearing of the said petition and ultimately it was heard and disposed of vide order dated 31-8-2005 allowing the prayer for re-examination of P.W. 1. This order is under challenge by the accused-Petitioner in this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned Counsel for the revisional Petitioner, Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura/Respondent No. 2.