Here is the Petition:
Vineet Ruia Vs Govt of West Bengal & OrsCategory: High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification
Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy Vs Arpita Singha Roy on 20 March 2020
Knife filed false criminal cases and the husband and his father had to be in police custody for nine days. This is cruelty and hence divorce for husband.
Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy Vs Arpita Singha Roy on 20 March 2020Citations:
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Shabnam Parveen Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors on 24 November, 2017
High Court of Calcutta (appellette side) has held that u/s 36 of PWDV Act, PWDV Act provisions are in addition to existing laws and basing that argument held that since the complainant (Shabnam Parveen) and the respondent are mohammaden, the respondent, being father-in-law, is under no obligation to provide maintain allowance to the widow of his son namely the petitioner
Shabnam Parveen Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors on 24 November, 2017Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33442063/
Reference: https://www.livelaw.in/muslim-father-in-law-no-obligation-maintain-sons-widow-dv-act-calcutta-hc-read-judgment/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015
Another good judgment from High Court of Kolkata wherein it was held that,
Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015“Unless it is satisfactorily established that domestic violence has taken place neither any protection order under Section 18 nor any residence order under Section 19 nor any order for monetary relief under Section 20 nor any compensation order under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be passed.”
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018
In this order from Calcutta High Court(appellate side),
Para 15,
According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].
From Para 25,
I have no hesitation in saying that the doors of justice would be closed for a litigant whose case is based on falsehood or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are alien to each other. Fraud pollutes the sanctity, regularity, orderliness and solemnity of the judicial proceedings. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean.
Finally, from Para 29,
Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018Before finally pronouncing my decision, I must state that this court, in all fairness gave an opportunity, after hearing and going through the documents produced by the respondents, to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition (with liberty to file afresh with better particulars). However, Mr. Saktipada Jana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refused and pressed the writ petition unabated. One is reminded of the saying, “you can take a horse to the well, but cannot force it to drink”. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition in limine. I am of the view that exemplary costs should be awarded. However, on a compassionate plea made by Mr. Jana, the order as to costs is limited to Rs.5,000/- only, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within two weeks from date.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Arijit Sarkar Vs Monosree Sarkar and Ors on 09 January, 2017
Calcutta High Court held in this judgment that “CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 is applicable even if evidence is not recorded in a case”.
Arijit Sarkar Vs Monosree Sarkar and Ors on 09 January, 2017Soukalin Ghosh & Ors Vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 June, 2018
Peculiar case of magistrate rejecting Discharge under 239 CrPC even after the parties have settled the dispute, just because 498A IPC is Non-Compoundable !!! This is in Calcutta. Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta stepped in and discharged the accused under 239 CrPC.
Soukalin Ghosh & Ors Vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 June, 2018[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Sukhamay Mondal Vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 August, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has gladly set aside the Rejection of Discharge petition under 239 CrPC and discharged accused other than husband.
Sukhamay Mondal Vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 August, 2018[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016
High Court of Calcutta held that,
Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016On scrutiny of the statement of witnesses like Sekhar Kar, Ramesh Saha and Shankar Roy recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture by the present petitioners. However, on close scrutiny of all the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on consideration of the allegation made in the written complaint treated as FIR, I do not find any specific role attributed to the present petitioners in inflicting mental torture or physically assault on the opposite party no.2. The allegation made against the present petitioners are vague and general in nature.
Sri Pritam Sen Vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 2001
In this order from hon’ble high court of Calcutta, which was based partially on this judgment from High Court of AP here, held that the learned Magistrate, in the fitness of the things, should not have Issued warrant against the petitioner at the first Instance without assigning any reason in compliance with provisions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sri Pritam Sen Vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 2001
