Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re : Siladitya Basak & Ors vs State Of West Bengal Reported In (2007)2 ... on 27 August, 2010
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
128. 27-08-10
g.n.
CRR No. 2582 of 2010
In Re : Siladitya Basak & Ors. - petitioners
Mr. Sudipto Moitra
Mr. Abhra Mukherjee
Mr. Ashok Das ... for the petitioners
Heard Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the impugned complaint as well as other materials on record.
Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in connection with a criminal case instituted on a complaint relating to the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this court for quashing of the complaint on the ground that the court before whom such case is pending, is lacking of territorial jurisdiction.
Mr. Moitra, learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently urged that since no part of the incident gave rise to initiation of the aforesaid criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, took place within the territorial limit of the learned court below, the trial of the petitioners before the said court is without jurisdiction.
This a case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Indisputable, if any, one of the offences is found to have been committed 2 within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular court, that would be enough for that court to hold the trial of an accused for such offence along with other offences.
According to the provisions of sub-Section 4 of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.
In the case at hand, from the face of the allegations made in the complaint there is no scope to say that the Court concerned possess no territorial jurisdiction to hold the trial of the case, which involves commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint it has been specifically alleged that the subject matter of criminal breach of trust, the stridhan articles were received by the accused persons at the venue of marriage situated at Gariahat Road, which is within the territorial limit of the Court concerned. Now, with reference to the provisions of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the allegations made in the complaint, the part of the property which is the subject matter of offence, i.e., the stridhan articles being allegedly received by the accused persons at Gariahat Road, there is no question of concluding that the Court of the Learned Judicial 3 Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore is lacking of territorial jurisdiction.
In this regard the allegatioins made in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the petition of complaint would be very relevant to refer and are quoted below;
"1. That your petitioner is the wife of the accused person no. 1 and the marriage was took place at "Singhi Palace"
situated at 48/1G Gariahat Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata - 700 019 on 30th January, 2002, which was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs which was a negotiated marriage.
2. That the Accused persons with common intention illegally and unlawfully demanded dowry as a condition precedent for solemnization of said marriage. On the basis of such demand, various valuables/jewelleries and articles (the list of which is mentioned in the separate sheet annexed hereto were presented by parents of your petitioner under compulsion at the time of marriage.
3. That the said articles were entrusted on 30.01.2002 at the marriage venue started above to the accused person for having complete dominion over the said articles which were handed over to them at the said place of marriage."
Mr. Moitra in support of his submission relied on two decisions namely, in the case of Sujoy Sen @ Sujoy Kr. Sen -vs
- State of West Bengal reported in (2007)2 C Cr LR (Cal) 669 and in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors -vs- Inspector of 4 Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004 C CR LR (SC) 972. So far as the law laid down in the aforesaid two cases are concerned, there is no dispute that when no part of cause of action accrued within the territorial limit of a particular court, the court concerned has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. However, in this case it is evident from the allegation made in para 3 of the complaint that the articles in question namely, stridhan, were entrusted to the accused on the date of the marriage and at the venue of the marriage at Gariahat Road, which falls within the territorial limit of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore and according to the provision of sub-Section 4 of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of offence was received must have the jurisdiction to hold the trial.
The submission of Mr. Moitra that there is no mention who entrusted the articles to whom is not a matter to be considered at this stage, when this court is only considering the question of quashing of a complaint on the ground the Court took cognizance is lacking of territorial jurisdiction.
In view of above, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision and same accordingly, stands dismissed. 5
The office is directed to communicate this order to the learned court below as well as to the opposite party-wife at her address mentioned in the cause title.
Criminal section is directed to supply the urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioners, if applied for.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)