JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

In Re : CRAN 1 of 2024

1. At the time of hearing, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits before this Court that the prayer made in CRAN 1 of 2024 has practically became infructuous with the lapse of time.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners thus, submits that she does not want to press CRAN 1 of 2024.

3. In view of the submissions made, CRAN 1 of 2024 is dismissed for non-prosecution.

In Re : CRR 1347 of 2024

1. In this criminal revisional application the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 17.10.2019 as passed in AC 1930 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7^th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas and the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 as passed in Criminal Appeal No.250 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2^nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas are assailed.

2. By the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 the learned Judicial magistrate while disposing an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” in short) directed the respondent no.1 /revisionist to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the aggrieved person / opposite party no.2 herein and also passed an order of protection for her peaceful stay at her shared household, particulars of which has been mentioned in the said order.

3. The respondent of the said case being AC 1930 of 2016 unsuccessfully challenged the said order dated 17.10.2019 before the First Appellate Court which affirmed the said order dated 17.10.2019 by its impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2024.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Halder learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 as passed in AC 1930 of 2016 by the Trial Court. It is submitted that in a proceeding under Section 12 of the said Act learned Trial Court while disposing the petition under Section 23 of the said Act for interim relief practically relied upon the chargesheet in connection with Maheshtala P.S. Case No. 171 of 2016 as submitted under Section 498A IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and came to a finding that the petitioner and the respondent before him were in a domestic relationship within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the said Act. It is further submitted by Mr. Halder that based on such finding the said Trial Court mechanically allowed the prayer for interim relief without coming to a finding as to whether the petitioner before him was an aggrieved person or not.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Halder that the First Appellate Court while deciding the criminal appeal no.250 of 2019 practically echoed the version of the Trial Court inasmuch as the said Appellate Court found no error on the part of the Trial Court in relying upon the chargesheet as submitted in connection with Maheshtala P.S. Case No.171 of 2016. At this juncture, Mr. Halder took me to the annexure to CRAN 3 of 2025 being a copy of the judgment dated 10.06.2025 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in BGR Case No.1460 of 2016. It is submitted that on perusal of the said judgment dated 10.06.2025 it would reveal that the present revisionists were acquitted from the charges under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were released from their respective bail bonds.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Halder that in view of the fact that the present revisionists were acquitted from the said criminal case, the chargesheet upon which the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate court relied upon while disposing the petition under Section 23 of the Said Act lost its significance and, therefore, the said two orders which were impugned before this Court may be set aside since apart from the chargesheet the said Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court did not rely upon any material to come to