Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1295/2014 on 16 September, 2014
Author: Indrajit Chatterjee
Bench: Indrajit Chatterjee
54 16.09.2014 AB Court C.R.R. 1295 of 2014 No.34 In re : Amiya Maity & Ors. ...Petitioners. Mr. Dilip Kr. Maity ... for the Opposite Party No.1. None appears on behalf of the present petitioners. Mr. Dilip Kr. Maity is present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. The State is un-represented.
I have gone through this application under Section 401/482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as filed by the present petitioners, who are the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2nd Court at Contai in Complaint Case No. 246 of 2009 under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
On scrutiny of the petition, it appears that this revisional application should not be kept pending only due to the non-appearance of the present petitioners. This Court prefers to dispose of the case on merit hearing the learned Counsel representing the Opposite Party No. 1.
I have gone through the FIR and I have also perused the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2nd Court at Contai dated 16.1.2014 as passed in that complaint case.
On reading and rereading the FIR, this Court is fully satisfied that whatever happened to the present Opposite Party No. 1, who is the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2nd Court at Contai, was only at her matrimonial home at Koushallya More, Kharagpur within the district of Paschim Medinipur. It goes without saying that under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is the Court having jurisdiction of that area, which could have entertained that complaint. There is nothing in the FIR that the offence continued even after she was allegedly driven out from her matrimonial abode and as such, there is no continuing cause of action to attract the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai of Purba Medinipur.
Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that further proceeding before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Contai will be an abuse of process and the interest of the parties will be served if the said Complaint Case No. 246 of 2009 is transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur at Medinipur to be disposed of either by him or by any competent Magistrate under him and I do that.
Let a copy of this Order be forwarded to the learned Sessions Judges, Purba Medinipur and Paschim Medinipur for necessary communication to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur and the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Contai for necessary action as contemplated in this order. The latter will take suitable steps to see that the record of Complaint Case No. 246 of 2009 is transmitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur intimating the Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Purba Medinipur.
Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant, is appraised regarding the order of this Court to suitably instruct his client regarding this order.
The revisional application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no cost for this litigation. The Criminal Section is directed to communicate this order to the concerned learned Court below.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)