AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Bag, J. - Leave is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to amend the cause title of the revisional application for correction of postal address of the Opposite Party No.2.
The petitioners have preferred the revision praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding of G. R. No. 388 of 2012 arising out of Dinhata Police Station Case No.378 dated June 26, 2012 pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata.
It appears from the materials on record that the Opposite Party No.2 filed a written complaint before the Officer-in-charge of Dinhata Police Station on the basis of which Dinhata Police Station Case No. 378 dated June 26, 2012 was registered. The police investigated the said criminal case and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court also framed charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and posted the case for recording of evidence of the prosecution.
Ms. Trina Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 happens to be husband of the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 happen to be the parents-in-law of the Opposite Party No.2. By referring to the averments made in the written complaint treated as First Information Report, learned counsel submits that part of the offence took place in the matrimonial home at Jalpaiguri and part of the offence took place in Kolkata where the Opposite Party No.2 lived with the petitioner no.1 as husband and wife in Government accommodation. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the court at Dinhata has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case and as such the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.
Mr. Ayan Basu, learned counsel representing the Opposite Party/State has also referred to the averments made in the written complaint and submitted that the Opposite Party No.2/de facto complainant was threatened and intimidated in the house of her parents at Dinhata on March 23, 2012 and also on March 25, 2012 and as such the court at Dinhata has the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
The contents of the written complaint treated as First Information Report disclose that the Opposite Party No.2/de facto complainant was tortured both physically and mentally for continuous period of three years after the marriage for nonfulfilment of demand of Rs. 1 lakh, when the Opposite Party No.2 lived in the matrimonial home at Jalpaiguri and when she lived with the husband in Kolkata. It is alleged in the written complaint that on March 23, 2012 and on March 25, 2012 the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 went to the house of the parents of the Opposite Party No.2 at Dinhata and threatened her and intimidated her in order to coerce her for payment of Rs.1 lakh. By comparing the allegation of continuous torture on the Opposite Party No.2 for almost three years after marriage for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.1 lakh with two incidents of intimidation and threat held out by the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 on March 23, 2012 and on March 25, 2012, I am of the view that the alleged incident of threat and intimidation of the Opposite Party No.2 by her husband while she was living in the house of her parents at Dinhata must be construed as stray incident, which cannot give rise to jurisdiction to the court at Dinhata to try the case, as contended by learned counsel for the Opposite Party/State. Since the offence took place partly in the matrimonial home of the Opposite Party No.2 at Jalpaiguri and partly in Kolkata when the Opposite Party No.2 lived with her husband in the Government quarters, I am of the view that the offence can be tried either by the court at Jalpaiguri or by the court at Kolkata as laid down in Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the present criminal case is liable to be transferred from the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri for trial and disposal. The G. R. No. 388 of 2012 corresponding to T. R. No. 41 of 2013 pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata is transferred to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri who may try the case himself or may transfer the said case to the court of any other learned Judicial Magistrate under his jurisdiction for trial and disposal with immediate effect.
Criminal revision is, thus, disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent down to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata with direction to transmit the record of this case to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. Let another copy of the order be sent down to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri for favour of information and necessary action.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis after compliance with all necessary formalities.