Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./605/2018 on 24 February, 2020
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010135722018
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM : NAGALAND : MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Crl. Pet. 605/2018
1. Rajib Chakraborty,
S/o Late Bimal Chakraborty
R/o Mission Compound
P.O.- Rajabari, P.S.- Jorhat, Out Post- Sinamora
Dist.- Jorhat, Assam.
2. Mrs. Karabi Chakravarty,
W/o Late Bimal Chakravarty
R/o Mission Compound, Rajabari,
Dist.- Jorhat, Assam.
............Petitioners.
- Versus -
1. Smti Leena Mazumdar,
W/o Sri Rajib Chakraborty
R/o Rukmini Nagar, Milijuli Path,
House No. 3, P.S. - Dispur, Guwahati- 06,
Dist.- Kamrup (M).
2. The State of Assam
Represented by
The Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court.
.............Respondents.
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. K.K. Mahanta,
Advocate
Mr. K.M. Mahanta,
Advocate.
Page No.# 2/6
Advocate for the respondent : Mr. K.D. Chetri,
Advocate
Mr. B.B. Gogoi,
Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 24.02.2020
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State/respondent No.2.
2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of complaint case being C.R. Case No. 5154C/2017, filed by the respondent No. 1, pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati including the order, dated 18.01.2018, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have contended that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent No. 1/complainant. On 30.01.2015, the petitioner No. 1 married the respondent No. 1 performing Hindu rites and rituals and started their conjugal life at Jorhat, Rajabari Mission Compound. It has been stated that on 15.10.2017, the respondent No. 1 along with some family members came to the house of the petitioners and took away all her belongings including her 'stridhan' properties. In that regard, the petitioner No. 2 had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat P.S. and thereupon Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2253/2017, under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner No. 1 and two others under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC. After the aforesaid incident, the respondent No. 1 has been residing at her parental home in Guwahati. On 08.02.2018, the petitioners received summons from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), ('CJM' for short) directing them to appear on 09.03.2018, in connection with complaint case No. 5154 c/2017, filed by the respondent No. 1 praying for issuance of search warrant in the address of the petitioners for recovery of 'stridhan' of the respondent No. 1. The said case is now pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati for appearance and by order, dated 15.12.2017, the learned Court issued search warrant to be executed by the officer-in-charge of Jorhat P.S. to search in the house of the petitioners, situated at Rajabari Mission Compound, Chinamara and to seize the articles mentioned in the complaint petition, if found and further, to hand over the said articles to the respondent No. 1 on execution of a bond of Rs.4,00,000/- and submit report to that effect. Accordingly, the police seized two articles from the house of the petitioners viz. one three door wooden almirah and one mattress respectively and handed over the same to the respondent No. 1. In this regard, the executing Police Officer of Jorhat P.S. submitted a detailed compliance report of the said order, dated 15.12.2017, enclosing therewith seizure list and Zimmanama. The petitioners have further contended that on 18.01.2018, the learned trial Court, after perusing the aforesaid police report, took cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and accordingly, issued summons to them.
4. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent No. 1 has filed the complaint case with a malicious intention as she had already taken away her 'stridhan' from the custody of the petitioners on 15.10.2017 and the Court at Guwahati has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as well as to try the complaint case, when the alleged occurrence took place at Jorhat within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the learned CJM, Jorhat. Mr. Mahanta further submitted that in view of the FIR and the charge-sheet being submitted by the police against the respondent No. 1, it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 1 has filed the impugned complaint case by taking resort to false accusation and knowing fully well that she had already taken to her possession all the properties given as 'stridhan' to her on 15.10.2017, the day on which she Page No.# 4/6 went to the house of the petitioners along with her relatives and took away all her belongings and 'stridhan' from her matrimonial home. Therefore, Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that it would clearly be an abuse of the process of the Court to continue with the complaint case being C.R. Case No. 5154 C/2017 filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioners in the Court at Guwahati, which has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case under Sction 181 (4) Cr.P.C. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in Bijay Kumar Jalan and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr., reported in 2017 (5) GLT 811 and the ratio of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100.
5. Mr. K. D. Chetri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/complainant, submitted that the petitioners had not allowed the respondent No. 1 to bring the almirah which was belonged to him by the petitioners. Mr. Chetri, further submitted that the respondent No. 1, complained of criminal breach of trust against the petitioners in respect of her 'stridhan'. Mr. Chetri submitted that the respondent No. 1/complainant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and since then, she has been residing at her parental home at Guwahati. Mr. Chetri, therefore, submitted that in view of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C., the Court at Guwahati has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the dowry articles against the petitioners, who are resident within the territorial jurisdiction of Jorhat P.S. In this regard, Mr. Chetri relied on the judgment passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Dinesh Kumar Vs. Lalita Mor in Criminal Misc. Application Appeal No. 747/1992, dated 25.11.1994.
6. I have considered the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the sides and perused records.
7. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure determines the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 lays down the general rule as to the 'ordinary' place of inquiry and trial, providing departure from this rule in the subsequent Sections 178 to 189 Cr.P.C. So far the offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust is concerned, Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. determines the jurisdiction of the criminal Page No.# 5/6 Courts in inquiries and trials, which reads as hereinbelow extracted-
"181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.-
(1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person."
8. The above provision shows that the offence of criminal misappropriation may be tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction (i) any part of property was received by the accused;
(ii) was retained by the accused or was required to be returned or accounted for and (iii) the offence was committed. In other words, Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. is applicable if any offence relates to misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property, which was subject to the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused. This is because all crime is local and the jurisdiction for inquiry or trial for offence vests in the Court in whose jurisdiction it is committed. As held by the Honb'le Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith (supra), the determining factor is whether any part of cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate for initiation of proceedings against the accused. This Court in Bijay Kumar Jalan (supra), pointed out that the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction needs to be decided on perusal of the complaint and the material annexed therewith and in the backdrop of facts, set aside and quash the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC and issuing process including order of search warrant, with direction to return the complaint for presentation before the proper Court. Therefore, the view taken by the single bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) to the effect that the Court where the wife demands return of her 'stridhan' property will have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal breach of trust could not be followed in the context of the case of the petitioners herein, as stated above, when apparently no such demand was made by the respondent No. 1/complainant.
9. For the reasons, set forth above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case, as the dowry articles were delivered and allegedly retained at Jorhat, the Court at Guwahati cannot have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal breach of trust, which was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Jorhat Court which will be not in Page No.# 6/6 conformity to Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 18.01.2018, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and issuing summons to them is set aside and quashed, as prayed for, with direction to the learned trial Court at Guwahati to return the complaint to the respondent No. 1/complainant, for presentation to the competent Court at Jorhat, if so advised.
10. Revision stands allowed accordingly.
The revision petition stands disposed off.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant