Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Binod Kumar Sil & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 27 November, 2009
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon'ble Justice Mr. Tapas Kumar Giri C.R.R. No. 1432 of 2009 Sri Binod Kumar Sil & Ors.
Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the petitioner: Mr. Pushpal Satpathi For the State: Mr. S. Pachal Heard on: 20/11/2009. Judgment on: 27/11/2009. TAPAS KUMAR GIRI, J.:-
This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is filed challenging the order dated 24-02-2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur in connection with the C.R. Case No. 282 of 2008 for rejection of the application regarding the maintainability for want of jurisdiction.
The fact of the present case, in brief, is that the marriage in between O.P.2 and petitioner No.1 was solemnized at Durgapur under the District of Burdwan and after marriage she began to live in her husband's house situated at 2 Halisahar under the District of 24 Parganas (North). After passing three months the petitioner No.1 along with his family members being petitioner Nos.2 to 4 began to torture upon the O.P. No.2 with a plea for realizing dowry amount. At last the O.P. No.2 left the house of petitioner No.1 and began to stay in her father's house at Durgapur. Afterwards, the O.P. No.2 has filed the petition of complaint under Section 492/406/384/323/506/34 of the I.P.C. to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur and the summon was served upon the accused persons and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur. During the pendency of the case, one application was filed by the accused persons i.e. the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur to discharge the accused/petitioners for want of jurisdiction. Learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application on 24-02-2009.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the said order dated 24-02-2009 the petitioners/accused persons approached this Court by this application for setting aside the order dated 24-02-2009 as well as for discharging the accused.
In the present criminal petition the main question has come for jurisdiction of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the cognizance of the offence.
Mr. Satpathi, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out that the offence was committed at Halisahar under the District of 24 Parganas (North) but the O.P. No.2 has filed the present petition of complaint 3 before the learned Additional C.J.M., Durgapur, for the alleged offence committed by the petitioners/accused persons.
Mr. Satpathi has also pointed out the relevant provision of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take the notice in respect of the place of inquiry of Trial. Mr. Satpathi pointed out that the offence was committed at Halisahar under the Sub-Division of Barrrackpore and as such the O.P. No.2 had the opportunity to file the complaint before the learned A.C.J.M., Barrackpore instead of the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Durgapur. The entire process is bad in law and the accused should be discharged form the case on the point of want of jurisdiction. In support of the contention Mr. Satpathi cited a case law reported in 2007(1) S.C.C 2622 (Monish Ratan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) No one appears on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and the affidavit of service is filed by the petitioners in respect of the service of notice upon O.P. No.2.
Mr. Pachal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/Opposite Party No.1 pointed out that the articles were received by the accused No.1/petitoner No.1 during the marriage at Durgapur and as such the offence committed by the accused persons should the tried at Durgapur. There is scope to discharge the accused at this stage. The present application is liable to be dismissed.
It is admitted that the marriage was solemnized at Durgapur in between petitioner No.1 and O.P. No.2 and after marriage O.P.2 began to reside with petitioner No.1/accused No.1 at Halisahar under District 24 Parganas (North). Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 states "every offence shall 4 ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." It is not denied that the cause of action arose within the territorial limit of jurisdiction at Halisahar. Section 177 of Cr.P.C. clearly shows that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the case Monish Ratan and Ors. (Supra), it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "interest of justice should be sub-served while setting aside the order of the High Court in exercise of Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 132 of the Constitution of India jurisdiction of criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tantia, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jabbalpur, is directed."
In the present case the alleged offence cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Durgapur. Prima facie known all the ingredients constituting the offence can be sent to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of the Court at Durgapur. And such, I am of the opinion, that interest of justice would be sub-served while setting aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 24-02-2009, Durgapur in exercise of the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With direction to transfer the criminal case being C.R. Case No.282 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. It is also directed the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur would issue the notice to O.P. No.2 keeping in view of the fact that O.P. No.2 is staying at Durgapur.
5This application be disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to cost. Urgent xerox certified copy be supplied to the party, if applied for.
(TAPAS KUMAR GIRI, J.)