SEEMA BEGUM Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2017-11-117
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 22,2017

SEEMA BEGUM Appellant
VERSUS
The State of West Bengal and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Debi Prosad Dey, J. - (1.) Crm 3569 of 2017 is an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) in respect of Tiljala Police Station F.I.R. No. 241 dated 21st July, 2016 under Sections 498-A/313/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter the DP Act) for cancellation of order no. 2 dated 10th November, 2016 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 8101 of 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore (hereafter the sessions judge) whereby and whereunder the husband of the de facto complainant/petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 (hereafter the husband) was granted bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(2.) The de-facto complainant/petitioner (hereafter the wife) has filed this application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the husband suppressed material facts in his application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and in fact the order impugned was passed by the sessions judge on the second application of the husband. The husband had moved an application being Criminal Misc. Case No. 7114 of 2016 before the vacation bench of the sessions judge under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. but surprisingly on 21st October, 2016 "not pressed" the said application and the same was, accordingly, rejected. He once again filed an application before the sessions judge under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. suppressing such material fact, which was ultimately allowed on 10th November, 2016.
(3.) It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the sessions judge in favour of the husband under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. ought to be cancelled on the ground that the sessions judge did not consider that he had obtained such order suppressing material facts and that the sessions judge also did not consider the materials collected during investigation. Learned advocate further contended that the order passed by the sessions judge is perverse per se and only on that ground, such order ought to be cancelled.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.