- (1.) The Opposite party/wife lodged a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. with the learned ACJM, Serampore against the present petitioners alleging offences under Section 498A/406 of the IPC. The petition was sent to the police for investigation by treating the same as FIR and the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. The case came to be tried before the learned Magistrate and during the pendency of the case, a compromise was effected which is why the O.P. No. 1 stated before the learned Magistrate that he filed a compromise petition and she was living with her husband. Two other witnesses were also examined and the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore passed an order of acquittal. However, the learned Magistrate wrote the judgment in such a fashion as if the case was being contested and the prosecution could not be able to prove the case but this was not the fact. The O.P. No. 1 withheld from contesting the case because before recording of evidence a compromise was effected pursuant to which she had gone back to her matrimonial home to live with the husband.
(2.) Sometime after living with the husband and sometime after disposal of the criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC, the O.P. No. 1 again came to be subjected to ill treatment and torture following which she again lodged a complaint to the learned CJM, Serampore which was registered as CR No. 406 of 2007. This complaint is now sought to be quashed on a very unique ground.
(3.) The ground is this that the allegations contained from paragraph 1 to paragraph 7 are but the verbatium reproduction of the allegations contained in the earlier petition beginning from para 1 to para 7. Therefore, it is argued by Mr. Sitaram Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that there cannot be any second trial on the self-same allegations of facts.;