Dipak Saha Ray, J. - (1.) THE present case arises out of an application u/s. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is directed against an order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda in G.R. Case No. 1702 of 2007 arising out of Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 106 of 2007 dated 02.09.2007 u/s. 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows : One Renu Khatun lodged a written complaint with the Officer -in -Charge, Harishchandrapur Police Station alleging inter alia, that she was married with Abdus Salam on 30.07.2007 and after her marriage her husband and in -laws i.e., the parents and brothers of her husband started inflicting torture on her due to non fulfillment of their demand of more ornaments, furniture, motor cycle etc. Ultimately, she left her matrimonial home as she could not endure the cruelty inflicted on her by the accused persons. Accordingly, Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 106 of 2007 dated 02.09.2007 u/s. 498/34 I.P.C. was started. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the husband, father -in -law and brother -in -law (present accused) of the defacto complainant u/s. 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of charge -sheet, the accused/petitioner herein surrendered before the Ld. Court and was granted bail and was all along on bail till the date of passing the impugned order in the matter of issuance of warrant against him. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 21.07.2011, the petitioner has filed the instant application.
(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that due to high blood pressure, he failed to attend the Court on the dates fixed though he filed petitions though his Ld. Lawyer; but the Ld. Court without considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances passed the impugned order of issuance of warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. Accordingly, it is alleged, that the said order dated 21.07.2011 thus suffers from inherent impropriety and as such the revisional application has been filed praying for setting aside of the same.;