Sri Binod Kumar Sil and Others vs State of W.B. and Another

Tapas Kumar Giri, J.—This application u/s 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed challenging the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur in connection with the C.R. Case No.282 of 2008 for rejection of the application regarding maintainability for want of jurisdiction.

The fact of the present case in brief, is that the marriage In between O.P.2 and petitioner No.1 was solemnized at Durgapur -under the District of Burdwan and after marriage she began to live in her husband''s house situated at Halisahar under the District of 24 Parganas (North). After passing three months the petitioner No.1 along with his family members being petitioner Nos.2 to 4 began to torture upon the O.P.No.2 with a plea for realizing dowry amount. At last the O.P.No.2 left the house of petitioner No.1 and began to stay in her father''s house at Durgapur. Afterwards, the O.P.No.2 has filed the petition of complaint under Section-498A/40G/384/323/506/34 of the IPC: to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur and the summon was served upon the accused persons and thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur, During the pendency of the case, one application was filed by the accused persons i.e. the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur to discharge the accused/petitioners for want of jurisdiction. Learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application on 24.02.2009.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the said order dated 24.02.2009 the petitioners/accused persons approached this Court by this application for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2009 as well as for discharging the accused.

In the present criminal petition the main question has come for jurisdiction of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the cognizance of the offence.

Mr. Satpathi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out that the offence was committed at Halisahar under the District of 24 Parganas (North), but the O.P.No.2 has filed the present petition of complaint before the learned Additional CJM Durgapur, for the alleged offence committed by the petitioners/accused persons.

Mr. Satpathi has also pointed out the relevant provision of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to take the notice in respect of the place of inquiry of Trial, Mr. Satpathi pointed out that the offence was committed at Halisahar under the Sub Division of Barrackpore and as such the O.P.No.2 had the opportunity to file the complaint before the learned ACJM, Barrackpore instead of the Court of learned ACJM Durgapur. The entire process is bad in law and the accused should be discharged form the case on the point of want of jurisdiction. In support of the contention Mr. Satpathi cited a case law reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M.K. Sekar, S. Karthik Rajasekaran, Kiruthika Meenavardhini, Prasanna Rajasekaran (Minors represented by father and guardian, M.K. Sekar) and E. Kandan, . No one, appears on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and the affidavit of service is filed by the petitioners in respect of the service of notice upon O.P.No.2.

Mr. Pachal learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/Opposite Party No.1 pointed out that the'' articles were received by the accused No.1/petitioner No.1 during the marriage at Durgapur and as such the offence committed by the accused persons should be tried at Durgapur. There is scope to discharge the accused at this stage. The present application is liable to be dismissed.

It is admitted that the marriage was solemnized at Durgapur in between petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.2 and after marriage O.P.No.2 began to reside with petitioner No.1/accused No. 1 at Halisahar under District 24 Paragans (North). Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states "every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." It is not denied that the cause of action arose within the territorial limit of jurisdiction at Halisahar. Section 177 of Cr.P.C. clearly shows that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the case Manish Ratan & Ors. (supra) it is observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court that "interest of justice should be sub-served while setting aside the order of the High Court in exercise of Supreme Court''s jurisdiction under Article 132 of the Constitution of India jurisdiction of criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tantia, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jabalpur, is directed.

In the present case the alleged offence cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate''s Court at Durgapur. Prima facie known all the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of the Court at Durgapur. And such, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served while setting aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 24.02.2009, Durgapur in exercise of the inherent power of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With direction to transfer the criminal case being C.R. Case No.282 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. It is also directed the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, would issue the notice to O.P.No.2. Keeping in view of the fact that O.P.No.2 is staying at Durgapur.

This application be disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to cost.