In Re : Soumen Sarkar alias Fatick Sarkar

Kanchan Chakraborty, J.—Md. Salauddin, learned advocate for the Petitioner, files supplementary affidavit as directed earlier by this Court. Let it be kept on record.

None appears on behalf of the private opposite party, Dulari Sarkar, despite the fact that notice was sent to her time and again by registered post even in the address she is residing now with her newly married husband as stated by the Petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit.

This application is pertaining to a criminal proceeding being Murarai Police Station Case No. 116 of 2003 dated 03.12.2003 under Sections 120B/149/323/498A/313 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner herein, Soumen Sarkar @ Fatick Sarkar. The case was initiated on a petition of complaint by Dulari Sarkar which was subsequently treated as First Information Report and, ultimately, ended in a charge sheet against this Petitioner under the abovementioned sections.

The Petitioner has come up with this application praying for quashing of the proceedings mainly on the ground that Dulari Sarkar, the defacto-complainant, was never his wife nor she lived with her at any point of time as his wife. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the case. In support of his case, a decree passed in Title Suit No. 143 of2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 1st Court, Birbhum, has been filed.

Md. Salauddin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that the decree was passed ex parte whereby it was declared that Dulari Sarkar was not legally married wife of the Plaintiff, Soumen Sarkar, i.e., the Petitioner herein. The decree passed on 19.02.2004. The charge sheet was filed on 28.12.2003, i.e., before the decree in Civil Court was passed. It appears from the decree passed in the civil suit that the Petitioner, being the Plaintiff in the suit, did not bring the matter into the notice of the Civil Judge who passed the ex parte decree in favour of the Petitioner declaring that there was no marriage between the parties. Had the Court any such information prior to passing of ex parte decree, it would have been considered the matter otherwise. Be that as it may, since the opposite party/wife is not appearing in Court, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter alive in this Court.

A charge sheet has filed showing prima facie case against the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the same, but the trial could not be proceeded because of pending of this revisional application. The stay order was passed on 29.04.2004. Since then matter is pending.

Considering the facts above, I think there is no reason for this Court to embark upon the evidence sought to be placed by the Petitioner as accused at this stage especially when the charge sheet has already been filed showing prima face case against him. Accordingly, this Court is reluctant to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the proceeding. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to agitate the point at the time of framing of charge in the learned Trial Court.

The learned Trial Court is directed to commence the trial without delay and, of course, put much importance on the point raised by the Petitioner in this revisional application regarding his matrimonial status of Dulari Sarkar at the time of framing of charge.

Let a xerox plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the learned advocate for the Petitioner so that he can place it before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court is directed to act on the said plain copy of this order in order to avoid delay.

In view of the above directions, this revisional application stands disposed of.

In the facts of the present case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.

Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated.