Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
4289/2007 on 6 September, 2010
Author: Asim Kumar Roy
Bench: Asim Kumar Roy
1
10
0.
C.R.R. 4289 of 2007
Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee
Mr. Ashit Nayek
Ms. S. Kundu ........for the petitioners
Mr. K.A. Ahmed ......for the State
Mr. Nanigopal Chakraborty .......for the O.P. No.2
This revisional application is for quashing of the proceeding in connection with C.R. 103/07
under sections 498A/323/406/506/497/120B I.P.C. now pending before the court of the learned
A.C.J.M., Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.
The factual background in a nut-shell, is that the petitioner No.1 Alok Kumar Mitra got
married with the O.P. No.2 Rubi Mitra and their marriage was solemnized on 22.11.02 according to
Special Marriage Act. By the passage of time the relation between them turned hostile. The O.P.
No.2 subsequently filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been registered as M.R.
56//07 before the court of the learned A.C.J.M., Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. She,
thereafter, filed a case for quashing of which this application has been filed before this court.
The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the marriage of
the parties has been registered within the jurisdiction of North 24-Parganas and after marriage the
partties lived at Shibpur, which is within the jurisdiction of Howrah. The petition of complaint,
2
which was submitted before the learned A.C.J.M. at Jhargram by the O.P. No.2 Rubi Mitra
discloses that she had lodged two G.Ds with Shibpur police station and those G.Ds are 1792 dated
20.8.05 and 808 dated 10.3.07. It is his further contention that no incident as alleged, took place
within the jurisdiction of Jhargram P.S. He has now invited the attention of the court to the
provisions laid down in section 156 as well as 177 of Cr.P.C. and has argued that every offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. To give a stand to his contention he has cited the decision reported in 2004 C Cr LR
(SC) 972, (2007)2 C Cr LR (SC) 46 and (2007)1 C Cr LR (cal) 800. He has contended strenuously
that the learned A.C.J.M at Jhargram had no jurisdiction to sit over this matter and as such, the
matter may be quashed.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has invited my attention to the
provisions laid down in section 178 (c ) of Cr.P.C and has contended that where an offence is of
continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, then the court within
whose jurisdiction such offence would be continued can take up the matter. He has invited the
attention of this court to the averments made in the petition of complaint by the O.P. No.2
wherefrom it transpires that the O.P. No.2 gave birth a baby at her father's place and the baby has
died subsequently due to malnutrition and as such, according to him, that incident may be treated as
continuing incident giving jurisdiction to the learned court below.
3
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 has contended in the same tune
with that of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State. He has also invited the attention
of this court to the provision laid down in section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has
contended that where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into
or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. To give a stand to his argument
he has cited a decision reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2465.
It is a fact that the marriage has been registered within the jurisdiction of North 24-Parganas
and the parties i.e. the petitioner No.1 and the O.P. No.2 started residing at Shibpur within the
jurisdiction of Shibpur police station, Dist. Howrah. It is seen from the petition of complaint
submitted by O.P. No.2 before the learned court below that she lodged G.Ds alleging torture upon
her at the instance of her husband while she used to reside at Shibpur. The relevant G.Ds are 1792
dated 20.8.05 and 808 dated 10.3.07. It is also a fact that the O.P. No.2 has taken the forum to
redress her grievance which falls within the jurisdiction of Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. It
is now pertinent to see the provisions laid down in sections 177 and 156 Cr.P.C.
Sec.177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed
Sec. 156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.- (1) Any officer in charge of
a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a
Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to
inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
4
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in
question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this
section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as
above-mentioned.
We may look into the provision of section 178(d) Cr.P.C. also.
Section 178(d).- Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be
inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
On plain perusal of section 177 Cr.P.C. it transpires that every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. It is an
admitted fact that alleged torture was inflicted to the O.P. No.2 by the petitioner No.1 within the
jurisdiction of Shibpur P.S., Dist. Howrah. There is no averment in the petition of complaint
saying that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to torture/cruelty at a place which falls within the
jurisdiction of Jhargram P.S., Dist. Paschim Medinipur. The learned advocate appearing on behalf
of the State has contended that the office is a continuing one as the child of the O.P. No.2 died after
few days of birth due to malnutrition at the father's place of O.P. No.2 which is within the
jurisdiction of Jhargram P.S., Dist. Paschim Medinipur.
The decision (2004 C Cr LR (SC) 972) cited by the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners deals with the similar case wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
Para - 15. The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In
the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right of
the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the
5
maintenance of the proceeding including not only be alleged infraction, but also the infraction
coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact, which it would be
necessary for the complainant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right or grievance to the
judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every
piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove such fact, comprises in "cause of action".
Para - 16. The expression "cause of action" has sometimes been employed to convey the
restricted idea of facts or circumstances which constitute either the infringement or the basis of a
right and no more. In a wider and more comprehensive sense, it has been used to denote the whole
bundle of material facts.
Para - 19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario
disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of
cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to
deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No.2
who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
The other two citations i.e. (2007)2 C Cr LR (SC) 46 and (2007)1 C Cr LR (Cal) 800 echoed the same principles.
The decisions which has been cited by the learned advocate appearing for the O.P. No.2 is based on the incident which took place on different jurisdiction. In the instant case it is otherwise. The death of the child within the jurisdiction of Jhargram P.S. due to alleged malnutrition cannot be taken as an instance by which the learned A.C.J.M., Jhargram sit over that matter. The marriage and incident respectively took place beyond the jurisdiction of Jhargram P.S., Dist. Paschim Medinipur and as such the learned A.C.J.M., Jhargram cannot take up this matter. The criminal proceedings i.e. C.R 103 of 2007 under sections 498A/323/406/506497/120B I.P.C. cannot be 6 allowed to continue in the court of the learned A.C.J.M., Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur. The learned court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to proceed with the matter further.
The proceeding i.e. CR 103 of 2007 be quashed. The learned A.C.J.M., Jhargram, should return the complaint/F.I.R to the complainant i.e. the O.P. No.2 Rubi Mitra and if she chooses, she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law.
The revisional application is accordingly allowed.
Criminal Section is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned A.C.J.M., Jhargram for information and necessary action.
Criminal Section is directed to supply photostat copy of this order to the learned advocate appearing for the parties as and when applied for.
[ Asim Kumar Ray, J ]