26 sg 28.03 2025. Ct. No. 42 C.R.R. 2557 of 2017 In the matter of : Surajit Dutta & Ors. Petitioners. Mr. Joydeep Roy Mr. Dattatreya Dutta ….For the State. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner, nor any accommodation prayed for on their behalf. They did not present even on the last occasion. This matter is pending since 7th August, 2017. Petitioners prayed for quashing of G.R. No. 3122 of 2014 arising out of Chatterjeehat Police Station Case No. 112 of 2014 date 02.05.2014 under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Joydeep Roy and Mr. Dattatreya Dutta, Learned Advocates for the State submitted that the impugned proceedings has no way connected to the proceeding for divorce on mutual consent. Written complaint disclosed sufficient material against the petitioner. This is not a fit case for quashing. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are her in-laws. Their marriage was solemnized on 1st May, 2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and they were living together since then. But due to difference in temperament their marital tie dissolved by the decree of divorce on mutual consent, vide dated 23rd June, 2015, passed in connection with MAT Suit No. 4145 of 2014 by Learned District Judge, Howrah. The impugned proceeding was initiated on the written complaint of opposite party no.2 prior to the petitioner filed under 2 Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, was not settled by the parties. It is still pending before the Court. The continuation of impugned proceeding would amount to abuse of process of Court. The parties also not interested to appear in this case. He last appeared on 07.08.2017. More than 7 years have been lapsed. Even notice on opposite parties was not yet served. The proceeding has not been stayed by the order of this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the conduct of the parties, I am of the view that this revisional application have no merit, deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revisional application being CRR 2557 of 2017, along with application, if any is disposed of. However, Learned Trial Judge is at the liberty to take necessary steps to dispose of the pending proceeding as expeditiously. Interim order, if any stands vacated. There is no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all legal formality. ( Uday Kumar, J. )