The Calcutta High Court has recognized that extraordinary personal circumstances, including the subsequent marriage between an accused and the complainant in a non-bailable offence, may warrant a temporary stay of arrest warrant to allow for lawful re-entry into proceedings. This decision underscores the judiciary’s discretion to balance procedural rigour with equitable considerations under Section 438 CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ajay Roy @ Raja, was named as an accused in Jalpaiguri Women Police Station Case No. 95/2018 dated 31.08.2018, for allegedly entering into a physical relationship with the complainant on a promise to marry. The case was registered under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, likely Section 498A and/or Section 376, though the judgment does not specify the exact section. The petitioner was initially granted bail and appeared regularly before the trial court until 2022.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was granted bail at an early stage of the proceedings
- He appeared before the trial court consistently until 2022
- Due to unforeseen circumstances, he failed to appear in court thereafter
- A warrant of arrest was issued on 07.09.2018, as referenced in the petition
- Subsequently, the petitioner married the same woman who filed the complaint
- A certified copy of the marriage certificate was submitted to the High Court as evidence
- Both the petitioner and the complainant believed that marriage would automatically terminate the criminal proceedings
- No formal application for quashing, withdrawal, or compounding was filed during the period of non-appearance
Procedural History
- 31.08.2018: FIR registered at Jalpaiguri Women Police Station, Case No. 95/2018
- 07.09.2018: Warrant of arrest issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri
- 2018 - 2022: Petitioner remained on bail and appeared before the trial court
- 2022: Petitioner ceased appearing due to personal circumstances and mistaken belief that marriage would end the case
- 2023 - 2025: No steps taken by petitioner to re-engage with proceedings
- 2026: Revisional application filed before Calcutta High Court seeking stay of arrest warrant
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that his non-appearance was not willful but stemmed from a genuine misconception that marriage to the complainant would abate the criminal case. He expressed willingness to surrender and seek bail.
The de facto complainant (now wife) supported the petitioner’s request, affirming she had no objection to the stay of the arrest warrant and desired the matter to be resolved through legal process.
The State opposed the prayer, arguing that the delay of several years in approaching the court undermined the petitioner’s credibility and that the seriousness of the offence warranted enforcement of the arrest warrant.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought stay of the arrest warrant issued on 07.09.2018, permission to surrender before the trial court, and opportunity to apply for bail.
The Legal Issue
Can a warrant of arrest be stayed on the ground that the accused has since married the complainant, and the delay in appearing was due to a bona fide but mistaken belief that the criminal case would abate upon marriage?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the petitioner’s conduct was not mala fide but rooted in a sincere misunderstanding of legal consequences. The marriage, now a fact, rendered the original animus between the parties obsolete. Reliance was placed on the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience under Article 142 of the Constitution, and the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process. The submission emphasized that the complainant herself had no objection to the petitioner’s re-entry into the proceedings.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the lapse of time - nearly four years since the warrant was issued - could not be condoned merely on the basis of a subsequent marriage. It argued that criminal proceedings involving personal offences cannot be terminated by private settlement without statutory compounding provisions. The State also highlighted the public interest in prosecuting such offences and warned against setting a precedent that might encourage accused persons to delay proceedings with the hope of eventual reconciliation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but noted the unique factual matrix. It observed that the petitioner had been on bail for several years and had not absconded or evaded justice. The subsequent marriage, confirmed by documentary evidence, fundamentally altered the nature of the dispute. The Court emphasized that while marriage does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, it may constitute a compelling reason for judicial intervention in the interest of justice.
"Considering the above and in the interest of justice, let the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner remain stayed for a period of four weeks from this date."
The Court rejected the notion that delay alone should bar relief where the delay was not motivated by malice or evasion. It distinguished this case from those involving wilful non-appearance or flight. The Court also noted the complainant’s consent as a significant factor, indicating the absence of ongoing harm or threat. The Court declined to condone the delay outright but provided a structured pathway for resolution: surrender within four weeks, followed by bail consideration.
The Verdict
The revisional application was disposed of with directions. The warrant of arrest issued on 07.09.2018 is stayed for four weeks from the date of judgment (23.03.2026). The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within this period. Upon surrender, the trial court shall consider his application for bail in accordance with law. The Court ordered an urgent photostat certified copy of the order to be supplied to the parties upon application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Marriage May Mitigate Arrest Enforcement
- Practitioners may now argue that marriage between accused and complainant in personal offence cases constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting stay of arrest
- This does not equate to automatic quashing but creates a strong basis for interim relief pending bail hearing
- Documentary proof of marriage is essential to substantiate the claim
Delay Is Not Fatal If Bona Fide
- Courts may condone delay in appearing if the accused can demonstrate a genuine, non-malicious reason for non-appearance
- The burden shifts to the State to prove mala fide intent or prejudice caused by delay
- Regular prior compliance with court appearances strengthens the petitioner’s position
Judicial Discretion Under Article 142 Is Broad
- The High Court’s power under Article 142 to do complete justice permits creative remedies in exceptional cases
- This judgment reinforces that procedural compliance must be balanced with substantive justice
- Lawyers should consider filing applications for stay of arrest where reconciliation or changed personal circumstances exist, even in non-compoundable offences
