Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Saugata Chatterjee vs The State Of West Bengal And Another on 25 April, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.R. 36 of 2007
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arunabha Basu
Saugata Chatterjee
Vs
The State of West Bengal and Another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudipto Maitra
Mr. B. Chowdhury
For the Opposite Party : Mr. A. K. Mitra.
No. 2.
For the State : Mrs. Krishna Ghosh.
Heard on : 27.2.2008, 28.2.2008.
Judgement on : 25.4.2008.
Arunabha Basu, J
The revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed for quashing the proceeding in
connection with Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 101/06 (B.G.R. No. 822 of 2006)
dated 13.3.2006 under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code now
pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
It is the case of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner
with Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act on
22nd November 2003. In the month of June, 2004 petitioner was posted as
Sales Manager, Dabur India Limited at Patna. Opposite Party No. 2 joined the
petitioner at Patna on 22nd June, 2004 and on the plea to attend a marriage
ceremony at Mumbai, Opposite Party No. 2 left her matrimonial home at Patna
in the month of October, 2005. Opposite Party No. 2 left her matrimonial
homes with all her belongings when the petitioner was absent due to his
official tour at Mazaffarpur. The efforts made by the petitioner to restore the
matrimonial ties failed and thereafter in the month of February, 2006 the
petitioner filed a suit for divorce before the learned District Judge at Patna,
which was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 53 of 2006. After the institution
of the matrimonial suit, the petitioner lodged the present case under challenge
only on 13th March, 2006. The allegation as raised in the First Information
Report is false and only lodged as counter blast of the matrimonial suit. No
cause of action as alleged took place within the territorial limits of Jadavpur
Police Station. The alleged demand of dowry subsequent to the marriage is
false and baseless. The petitioner herein infact paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the
mother of the Opposite Party No. 2, which is available from the Bank
statement, which is annexed as Annexure P-3.
Petitioner has prayed for quashing the First Information Report on
the said grounds.
Mr. Sudipto Maitra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that in this case the entire cause of action as alleged took place outside the
jurisdiction of the said police station and F.I.R. was lodged only as a counter
blast to the matrimonial suit filed by the petitioner against Opposite Party No.2
seeking divorce. From the documents filed along with the application, it
appears that learned Principal Judge, Patna in connection with Matrimonial Suit
passed ex parte decree of divorce dated 5.6.2007 dissolving the marriage
between the parties.
Being directed by this court learned advocate for the State
produced the Case Diary in connection with the Jadavpur Police Station Case
No. 101/2006 dated 13.3.2006 registered under Section 498A/406 of the
Indian Penal Code.
While refuting the submission made by learned advocate for the
petitioner, learned advocate for the Opposite Party submitted that at this stage
of investigation, it is not open to this Court to enter into disputed question of
fact. It is also submitted that the First Information Report discloses
commission of offence within the purview of Section 498A and 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and even if a part of the cause of action have taken place
outside the jurisdiction of the Jadavpur Police Station, the same cannot be the
ground to quash the investigation as prayed for by the petitioner.
Learned advocate for the Opposite Party in support of his
contention has referred the following decisions:
1.Ramesh & Ors.-Vs.- State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) 1 C Cr LR (SC) 617.
2. Sri Amardeep Sinha -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2008) 1 C Cr LR (Cal) 293.
3. C.R.R. No. 1054 of 2006.
There appears to be no dispute that so far as the present investigation conducted by the officers of the Jadavpur Police Station is concerned, investigation is still pending and no report in final form in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is submitted by the Police.
It may be pointed out in this context that Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in inquiries and trials. General provision of such inquiry and trial will be in terms of Section 177 of the Code which provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
It may be pointed out in this context that Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide that investigation must be conducted by the police only in places as provided under the said Chapter. Investigation in connection with cognizable offence is initiated by the police in terms of provisions as prescribed under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is provided as to information as to commission of cognizable offence shall be lodged before the officer in charge of the police station. It will be appropriate to refer to Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is set out below:
" 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. (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."
Sub section 2 to Section 156 as mentioned above indicates that the power of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence can be called in question on the ground that such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
It appears that sub-section 2 to Section 156 gives the protection to the police officer to conduct investigation in cases where information in terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is lodged before the officer in charge of the Police Station unless the investigation is completed and report in final form is submitted before the Magistrate in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On perusal of which the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance in terms of Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus it cannot be stated as to how and where the inquiry or trial shall be conducted in terms of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless report in final form is submitted on conclusion of investigation.
In my humble view, during the stage of investigation, it may not be permissible for the revisional Court to interfere into the matter deciding the case on the point of jurisdiction, as because the question of jurisdiction will arise only at the stage of inquiry and trial and not at the stage of investigation.
From the copy of First Information Report produced alongwith the application, a copy of which is also available in the Case Diary it appears that there is clear recital that as per demand by the husband (petitioner herein) and in-laws, gold ornaments, furniture etc. were given at the time of marriage.
It may be pointed out in this context that the marriage was solemnised within the jurisdiction of the Jadavpur Police Station and as such prima facie it appears that a part of the cause of action, so far as giving of articles on demand took place at the time of marriage, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Jadavpur Police Station.
Learned advocate for the Opposite Party specifically relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh & Ors. -Vs-. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra) in which Division Bench of Supreme Court at para 11 of the aforesaid decision held as follows :
"11. In the view we are taking, it is not necessary for us to delve into the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Trichy in detail. Suffice it to say that on looking at the complaint at its face value, the offences alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Trichy. Prima facie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of that Court. Almost all the allegations pertain to acts of cruelty for the purpose of extracting additional property as dowry while she was in the matrimonial home at Mumbai and the alleged acts of misappropriation of her movable property at Mumbai. However, there is one allegation relevant to Section 498-A from which it could be inferred that one of the acts giving rise to the offence under the said Section had taken place in Chennai. It is alleged that when the relations of the informant met her in-laws at a hotel in Chennai where they were staying on 13.10.1998, there was again a demand for dowry and a threat to torture her in case she was sent back to Mumbai without the money and articles demanded."
Even in cases where the question of jurisdiction depends on the territorial limits of the Court inquiring or trying the offences, then also it is well settled principle of law that if a part of cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of one place and other part of cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of other place, then if the FIR is lodged within the jurisdiction of one place or trial is conducted within the jurisdiction of that place then it cannot be stated that on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the entire trial would be vitiated.
In this connection, if one looks into the provision of Sub-section 4 of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which stipulates that in case of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, trial may be conducted by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject matter of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
So far as the present investigation is concerned, not only the offence under Section 498A and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is investigated by the police. First Information Report, prima facie, discloses commission of offence under both the provisions of law and as such at this stage the material produced before this court is not sufficient to decide that on the ground of jurisdiction, the investigation which is now being conducted by the Jadavpur Police Station is required to be quashed.
In view of above discussion, I hold that the present revisional application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
Case Diary be returned.
Criminal Section is directed to forward a copy of the order to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore as urgently as possible.
Criminal Section is also directed to supply urgent certified copy of the order as and when applied for.
(Arunabha Basu, J.)