15.07.2026 Court No.42 Item No. 31 D.Hira CRR 3660 of 2017 In the matter of :- Sardesh Ali Seikh 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. No accommodation is prayed for. The private opposite party No. 2 and the State are also unrepresented before this Court today. 2. This revisional application has been pending on the files of this Court since the year 2017. The persistent reluctancy from the ends of the parties to appear and prosecute the matter represents a total lack of interest in proceeding with this litigation. 3. It is a settled principle of judicial administration that criminal revisions cannot be kept pending indefinitely to stall trials in the courts below. Public policy and the ends of justice demand that long-standing matters be resolved with dispatch. When parties choose to remain willfully absent despite several opportunities, the Court is duty-bound to examine the materials available on record and dispose of the application on its merits. Accordingly, I take up this matter for final disposal on the basis of the materials available on record. 4. The factual matrix of the case, as gathered from the petition of complaint, is that the opposite party No. 2 (Abdur Rahaman) is the husband of Nargis Parveen, who is the daughter of the petitioner herein, Sardesh Ali Seikh. 5. The complainant alleges that on August 11, 2013, he sent a registered "Talaknama" to his wife, Nargis Parveen, under 2 registered post with A/D, which she refused to accept. The complainant further asserts that during the subsistence of their marriage, Nargis Parveen entered into an illicit relationship with one Mir Maruf Ripan Mir, and they began living together as husband and wife. 6. It is further alleged that the petitioner, being the father of the said Nargis Parveen, was actively aiding, abetting, and supporting his daughter in carrying on the intrigue and establishing this adulterous arrangement. 7. On December 07, 2016, the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nabadwip, Nadia, which was registered as C.R. Case No. 120 of 2016. On February 27, 2017, the Learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witness on solemn affirmation (S/A) and, finding a prima facie case, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 494/495/497/120B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons against the petitioner and the other accused persons. 8. In the revisional petition, the petitioner challenges the order taking cognizance dated February 27, 2017, and prays for the quashing of the proceedings on the following grounds: First, that the petition of complaint is completely vague, lacking details regarding the specific date, hour, and place of the alleged occurrences. Second, that the complainant himself admits to having sent a "Talaknama" to the petitioner's daughter. It is argued that because of this "Talaknama", the marriage stands dissolved under 3 personal law, and therefore, no charge of bigamy under Section 494 or 495 of the IPC can be sustained. Third, that under the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC, a woman cannot be prosecuted as an abettor, and similarly, the family members of the wife cannot be prosecuted for adultery. Fourth, that the Learned Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the alleged bigamous marriage was not committed within the limits of his jurisdiction. 9. I have carefully examined the petition of complaint, the initial depositions recorded on solemn affirmation, and the impugned order dated February 27, 2017, taking cognizance of the offences. 10. Dealing with the petitioner’s contention regarding the dissolution of marriage by "Talaknama", it is a settled position of law that the execution, service, and validity of a Talaknama are matters of strict proof. The complainant asserts that the registered Talaknama was refused by his wife, and the legal consequence of such refusal, along with the actual status of the marital tie, must be tested during the trial. At the stage of taking cognizance, the court cannot assume that a legally binding divorce has taken place merely because an unproven registered document is referred to in the complaint. 11. Furthermore, the plea that the complaint lacks specific dates, hours, or locations of the bigamous cohabitation is a matter that goes to the weight of the evidence, which cannot be clinically evaluated under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Learned Magistrate is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out from the 4 allegations in the complaint and the statements on solemn affirmation. The court is not required to write a detailed, reasoned order balancing the defense of the accused. 12. While the petitioner has raised several legal issues—including the applicability of Section 497 of the IPC (which has since been struck down as unconstitutional) and the question of territorial jurisdiction—it must be noted that the complaint also alleges offences under Sections 494, 120B, and 506 of the IPC. The criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) of the petitioner in facilitating the bigamous marriage of his daughter and threatening the complainant (Section 506) are triable issues of fact. 13. The petitioner's pleas are, at best, factual defenses that can be raised at the stage of framing of charges or during the trial. On a perusal of the materials on record, I do not find any perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated February 27, 2017. The arguments raised by the petitioner are vague in nature and do not warrant the extraordinary intervention of this Court at this preliminary stage. 14. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this revisional application. 15. C.R.R. No. 3660 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. 16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17. The interim order of stay granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 18. The Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein, which are strictly confined to the disposal of this revisional application. 5 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Learned Trial Court immediately for information and swift action. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)