JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No.1357 dated November 18, 2020 under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code giving rise to GR Case No.5043 of 2020 wherein charge sheet has been submitted vide Charge Sheet No. 03 dated January 13, 2021 under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

2. The petitioner’s case in short is that the defacto complainant filed the present case being New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No.1357 dated November 18, 2020 under Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner who is the husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2. They were married on December 1, 2014 according to Hindu Rights and Customs. It was alleged in the written complaint that about five years ago (that is in the year 2015) the petitioner and the defacto complainant built up a relationship of love and affection. It is further alleged that the petitioner tempted and promised the complainant to marry her. Since then, the petitioner on various occasions took the complainant to different places and they indulged in physical relationship. Subsequently, after four years, the complainant became pregnant and gave birth to a girl child. The complainant requested the petitioner to marry her but he refused to introduce her and their daughter. Moreover, after eight months of the said incident, the petitioner refused to keep any contact with the complainant and fled away. Subsequently, it came to knowledge of the complainant that the petitioner was staying at Siliguri with an unknown lady. After that the complainant and her family went to the petitioner’s residence, and the petitioner abused the complainant verbally as well as physically.

3. The petitioner states that out of the said marriage between him and the complainant/opposite party no.2, one female child was born who was named “Jui Santra” and presently she is aged about 5 years and 6 months.

4. The petitioner states that his name appears as the husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2 in the electoral list for the year 2022 under the Jangipara Legislative Constituency. The petitioner further draws attention of the Court to the following documents and testimonials wherefrom it would be crystal clear that the petitioner is the legally married husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2:-

i) Photo copy of the Pan card of the complainant/opposite party no.2.

ii) Photo copy of the Aadhar Card of the complainant/opposite party no.2.

iii) Photo copy of the loan book of Bandhan FSPL standing in the name of the complainant/opposite party no.2. iv) Photo copy of the Antpur Gram Panchayat of the complainant/opposite party no.2.

5. Hence, the revision on the ground that the impugned proceeding is malicious and is thus, liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Sourav Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no material on record to make out a case as alleged by the complainant as there are sufficient documents on record to prove that the complainant is the lawfully wedded/married wife of the petitioner. The statement in the written complaint that the petitioner is refusing to marry her after co-habiting with her is totally false in view of the documents filed in support of their marriage and also the birth certificate of their child. Copy of the marriage invitation card annexed to the petition shows that the date of marriage between the complainant and the petitioner was on 26th July, 2015. There is also a deed of declaration after marriage between the parties wherein the complainant has also signed as the bride and the petitioner as the bridegroom.

7. Mr. Ujjwal Luksom, learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary and also a report dated 91.1.2023 filed by S.I Kamal Sarkar of New Jalpaiguri Police Station, under Siliguri Commiss