- (1.) This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being S.C. Case No. 6(9) 2003 now pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Barasat and also for setting aside the order dated 21.2.04 passed by the learned Judge rejecting petitioners contention to discharge them from the said case.
(2.) Petitioners case, in short, is that the O.P. No. 2 Aparna Dasgupta lodged FIR before the Belghoria Police Station alleging that there was marriage between her and petitioner No. 2 on 8th March, 1999. On 11th November, 2001 her husband went to. his father's house at Belakoba assuring her that he will register the marriage on 10th December, 2001, and thereafter, would take away her to Belakoba. But neither her husband nor any member of her in-laws house came to take her and so, she went to Belakoba on 17th December, 2001. Seeing her there, her husband and his family members became furious on her and created pressure on her to bring Rs. 3 lakhs from her father's house. Subsequently her husband denied the relation and refused to take any responsibility and she was not given any shelter in her in-laws house. On 19th August, 2002 her husband married one Barnali Dasgupta and the said marriage was registered also. She alleged in the FIR that the petitioner No. 2 ravished her and spoiled her life. On the basis of such FIR Belghoria RS. Case No. 130 dated 14.11.02 was started and after completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 376/420/493/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the I.P.C.) before the learned SDJM, Barrackpore. Subsequently the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it is now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 at Barasat for disposal.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioners submitted a prayer before the learned Judge for discharging them but, the learned Judge by the impugned order dated 21.2.04 rejected their prayer. Learned Judge failed to realise that the FIR, if taken at its face value in entirety does not disclose any element of offence under Sections 376/420/ 493/120B of I.P.C. against the petitioners. There is no material at ail to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. The O.P. No. 2, the informant is well educated lady of 26 years age and she voluntarily attended the mess of petitioner No. 2 and consented to sexual intercourse with him and from March 1999 enjoyed such alleged marital life for more than three years and eight months. Statement given by her under Section 164 of the Code is a total contradiction from her statement mentioned in FIR. The 164 statement clearly reveals that the O.P. has intentionally fabricated a false story in her Section 164 statement to implicate these petitioners. She cannot blow both hot and cold at same breath and cannot claim at the same breath that she was the wife of petitioner No. 2 and again allege that the petitioner No. 2 raped her. He contended that the O.R No. 2 has intentionally lodged a false FIR to create pressure upon them when petitioner No. 2 validly married according to Hindu rites and customs. He contended that it is a fit case for quashing the impugned criminal proceeding now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Barasat.;