Nilanjan Basu alias Niranjan & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

Petitioners have assailed the order dated 3rd August, 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Asansol in G.R. Case No. 1509 of 2010 arising out of Hirapur P.S. Case No. 165 of 2010 dated 19.09.2010 under sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the application filed by the petitioners / accused persons praying for discharge from the aforesaid case was rejected.

The petitioners herein are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and aunt-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 / de facto complainant.

The facts in brief giving rise to the present revisional application are that the de facto complainant filed a petition of complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol alleging commission of offences under section 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the accused persons. On the basis of the aforesaid petition of complaint the proceeding was initiated against all the accused persons which culminated in the submission of the Charge-Sheet under section 498A/323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Asansol where the parental house of the opposite party no. 2 / de facto complainant is situated.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate, Asansol has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case since no part of the alleged offence was committed within the said jurisdiction. In support of such submission reliance has been placed upon the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Others reported in (2004)8SCC100. It has also been canvassed that there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners against whom there are omnibus allegations. The F.I.R. and the Charge Sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

Learned counsel appearing for the State countered that the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclose sufficient materials against the petitioners. It has also been pointed out that paragraph 8 of the petition of complaint indicates that part of cause of action took place in the parental house of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2.

It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge or while considering a petition for discharge of the accused, it is not for the Magistrate or the trial judge to hold a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the materials as if he was conducting a trial. The Court is required to find out if the facts emerging from the materials on record, taken at their face value constitute the offences alleged. Disputed questions of fact are matters to be decided during the trial. It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of the complaint all the ingredients of the offences alleged. It is sufficient if the necessary factual foundation is laid therein. In the instant case, upon perusal of the F.I.R., Charge Sheet as well as the materials in the case diary it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners for the offences alleged. The decision in Y. Abraham's Case (Supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case and is not applicable herein. Therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference.

The application being C.R.R. 3511 of 2015 is thus dismissed.

No order as to cost.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court will dispose of the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.

The trial court shall make every endeavour to expedite the hearing of G.R. Case No. 1509 of 2010 and dispose of the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.