Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the instant revisional application the legality and propriety of the proceeding in C. R. Case No. 1049 of 2007 under Section 406/120B IPC and order passed therein dated 04.10.2007 now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Siliguri has been called in question with prayer for quashing of the same.

2. Both the petitioners contend that the petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-

law of the defacto complainant, i.e., the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner no. 2 is her mother-in-law. Their son was married to OP No. 2 on 22.11.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and after marriage they led conjugal life at the place of vocation of his son Som Sankar Banerjee at Mumbai. In the month of June 2005 his son was transferred to Bangalore where the OP No. 2 used to reside with him. On 23.02.2006 the OP No. 2 left her matrimonial home at Bangalore with her belongings along with her mother and brother and their attempt to bring her back was proved to be abortive. His son lodged a G. R. Entry with the local police station in January, 2007. Subsequently the OP No. 2 filed a written complaint on 03.08.2007 with the Kotwali Police Station alleging of commission of offence under Section 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioners and five others which was registered under Kotwali Police Station Case No. 341/07 dated 03.08.2007. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted in that case on 26.09.2007 against all the accused persons. Thereafter on 03.10.2007 the OP No. 2 filed another complainant before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri against the present petitioners and their son for commission of offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging, inter alia, that OP No. 2 entrusted her Stridhan property with the son of the petitioners and at the time of leaving her matrimonial home the son of the petitioners did not allow her to take back her Stridhan property being encouraged by his parents. By order dated 03.10.2007 the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri took cognisance of the offence and transferred the same to the 2nd Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri. On prayer of the complainant the learned transferee Court issued a search warrant on 21.11.2007 under Section 93 Cr.P.C. for recovery of her Stridhan articles from the Bangalore residence of the son of the petitioner. On 01.03.2008 the petitioners herein and their son surrendered before the Learned Court concerned and were released on bail. The OP No. 2 subsequently also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C being M. R. Case No. 73/07 before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Siliguri who was pleased to grant an interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-

4. Considering the rival contention of the parties present I hold that only point to be decided in this case is the legality and propriety of the jurisdiction imbibed by the Learned Trial Court in order to exercise the powers under Section 93 Cr.P.C. in granting search warrant for recovery of the retained Stridhan property.

5. Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, Learned Lawyer for the petitioner has contended that in the petition of complaint there was no whisper of entrustment of the property to the present petitioners. He has drawn my pointed attention to the averment of the OP No. 2 made in paragraph 19 of her petition of complaint being C. R. Case No. 1047 of 2007 which is quoted below:

8. From a copy of the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Learned Trial Court it appears that on examination of the complaint and another witness the Learned Court below was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out under Section 120B and 406 IPC against both the parents-in-law, i.e., the present two petitioners and their son and as such issued Summons. It also appears from the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Learned Court below that in allowing the prayer under Section 93 Cr.P.C. for recovery of the retained Stridhan property the Learned Court below directed the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore and of Karnataka to take adequate steps and to make necessary arrangements to execute the search warrant in terms of the said petition under Section 93 Cr.P.C. by 28.03.2008 and to send the report by 13.05.2008.