Sukhendu Dhibar v. State Of West Bengal And Another

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta CRR 1685 of 2020 Dr. Sukhendu Dhibar Vs.

State of W.B. & another For the Petitioner : Ms. Minoti Gomes : Mr. Partha Sarathi Das For the State : Mr. Prasun Datta, Ld.APP : Mr. Santanu Deb Roy Heard on: 7th December, 2020 Judgment on : 7th December, 2020 The Court:

Although this is an application for quashing of a proceeding in a complaint case under Sections 323, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client would not press for the same and would instead pray for an expeditious disposal of the proceeding.

Let a copy of the application be served upon Mr. Prasun Datta and Mr. S. Deb Roy, learned advocates, who are present in Court today and who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State. Their engagement may be regularised in due course by the competent authority of the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits as follows. The petitioner, who is a doctor by profession, got married to the opposite party no.2 in 2013. The wife was an engineer and was working elsewhere. In 2015, the wife left the matrimonial home and initiated the impugned proceeding. Since then the proceeding has remained pending for no fault on the part of the present petitioner. Although evidence has started, the same could not be concluded. It will be in the interest of justice that the proceeding is directed to be expedited.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that State would not come in the way if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.

No one will be prejudiced if the impugned proceeding is expedited.

It appears that the proceeding at hand is pending since quite long and it will be in the interest of justice that the same is expedited. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as

possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any other parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing.

The merits of the case have not been gone into. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. (Jay Sengupta,J.) ssi