01 NB 21.09.2026 Ct. No. 28 CRA (SB) 124 of 2026 CRAN 1 of 2026 CRAN 2 of 2026 (via Video Conference) In Re. Application/Petition praying for set aside the impugned order dated 10.04.2026 passed by ld. Addl. District Judge, 1st Track Court No.1, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in connection with Misc. Case No.367 of 2025 under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023 read with 215 BNSS for offences under Sections 229, 236, 237,246 of BNS erstwhile Sections 340 of Cr.P.C read with Sections 195 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 193, 199, 200, 209 of IPC arising out of Misc. Case No.305 of 2024 under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and MAT Suit No.2851/2021. And In the matter of:- Archisman Sarkar ……..appellant Mr. Sukumar Majumdar. ……….for the appellant. Ms. Debaleena Ganguly, Mr. Debabrata Ganguly. ……….for the OP No.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 380 of the BNSS read with Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in connection with Misc. Case No.367 of 2025 under Section 379 of BNSS read with Section 215 of BNSS for initiating proceeding for offences under Sections 229, 236, 237 and 246 of the BNS. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that he is aggrieved because his prayer for taking action by initiating appropriate proceeding was not allowed by the learned District Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 opposes the prayer. It appears that the application by the appellant was made in respect of a civil proceeding being MAT Case No.2851 of 2021. It was 2 alleged that the private opposite party/wife had suppressed the actual financial status of the private respondent while preferring an application being Misc. Case No.305 of 2024 claiming interim maintenance. It is settled law that, if such prayer for action in terms of Section 379 of BNSS made before a Court is turned down, then an appeal would lie before the Court to which the said original Court is subordinate. In other words, when a civil Court refuses to file any complaint under Section 340 Cr.PC or Section 379 of the BNSS, appeal by the aggrieved party can be filed only to the appellant Court in civil side having jurisdiction. However, here the appellant has erroneously preferred the appeal in the criminal side simply because the provision pertains to BNSS. This is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Narayan Mukherjee & Ors,, reported at 2006 (1) CHN 6, and an unreported decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No. 1887/2010. Therefore, the instant appeal as preferred by the present appellant is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the civil side of this Court, if so advised. Accordingly, the applications CRAN 1 of 2026 and CRAN 2 of 2026 also stand disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. . (Jay Sengupta, J.) 3