RAJENDRA NATH SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is to consider an application under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of the petitioners husband and mother-in-law being aggrieved by the order passed in G. R. Case No. 1060 of 1996 dated 31. 8. 99 passed by the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah (Tangra P. S. case No. 80 dated 22. 5. 1996 under sections 498a, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation is the prime consideration for adjudication as has been contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioner. The backdrop may be stated in brief that the parties were married by way of registration on 12. 2. 1995 with the stipulation that the petitioner/husband's apartment is unfit for living with wife and one new flat at Motijhil Avenue which was expected to be handed over to the husband by 31. 3. 1995. Thereafter as per mutual settlement the wife was to stay at her father's place. Thereafter a social function of the said marriage was held on 21. 4. 1995 and she had been to the marital home and boubhat was there on 23. 4. 1995 but the same was held at Utsav, 168, Sarat Bose Road, calcutta. They both spent that nights on 23. 4. and 24. 4. boubhat day on her father's residence at Lake Road, Calcutta. On 24. 4. the petitioner/husband left therefrom and again came back on 30. 4. 1995, spent the night there but did not go afterwards. She was, however, taken to the marital home on 29. 5. 1995 after initial reluctance by the petitioner/accused and his mother taken in till her stay there up to 4. 6. 1995. All sorts of mental torture were perpetrated on her and the petitioner and his mother forced her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her father for the purposes of making payments for the new flat and that Rs. 30,000/-was given for furniture etc. as gifts were inadequate. During this stay she was not provided with normal food but served with rotten food and since then bid for reconciliation by relations gone in vain she filed a petition before the learned cjm at Alipore on 19. 4. 1996 which was sent to P. S. under section 156 (3) Cr. PC received by the respective P. S. and FIR was drawn on 22. 5. 1996 and after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet under the aforesaid sections showing both the accused absconder on 31. 8. 1999. Learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate at Sealdah took cognizance of the offence and issued warrant of arrest, hence the petition.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been contended by Mr. Milan Mukherjee, learned Advocate that on the face of it the cognizance taken by the learned acjm is bad keeping in view of section provided under chapter 36 of the Cr. PC and he has relied on the following reported decisions namely : 1) 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 629, Arun Vyas and Anr. vs. Anit Vyas. 2) 2001 (3) Crimes 432, Ravi Dutta Sharma vs. State of U. P. 3) 2003 C Cr LR (Cal) 639, Avhijit Sen vs. State of W. B.

( 4 ) MR. Bijoy Adhikary for the de facto complainant has urged that (a) if the de facto complainant is to suffer for no default of his own but for the I. Os delay? in this respect he has further submitted that the I. O. Ms. Malaya Mojumdar herself was in the family way, thus, causing the delay, (b) According to him the entire matter as to whether there was delay or not be decided in course of trial. Mr. Adhikary has fervently urged with all the vehement in his command that keeping in view of nature of the offences under sections 498a and 406 read with section 34 such cruelty perpetrated on the womanhood is to be dwelt strictly and mere technicality may not be allowed to stand in the way. Sri Adhikary has relied on the reported decision namely:a) 2003 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporters (Supreme Court) 752, Union of india vs. Prakash Hinduja and Anr. b) 1995 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Supreme Court) 291, Ganesh narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangaruppa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document