Sunil Basu vs State of West Bengal

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.—Inspite of notice none appears on behalf of the complainant opposite party and the state of West Bengal. The affidavit of service filed in court today may be kept on record.

This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding being case No. 117C/2000 u/s 498A/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, kalyani.

The aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by the complainant opposite party against the present Petitioners and others alleging commission of an offence u/s 498A/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation made in the petition of complaint is that the complainant got married with one Hirak Chakraborty and such marriage was solemnized at Kalyani according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage she was taken to her matrimonial home at Kalighat in Calcutta it was alleged that immediately after marriage she was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by her husband and mother-in-law, who along with the present Petitioners started torturing the complainant as she failed to bring more money and ornaments from her father''s house as it was demanded by the accused persons. In the month of November, 1991 the husband of the complainant went to Delhi leaving the complainant at Calcutta and she was again subjected to torture by her mother-in-law and the present Petitioners. After few days the complainant was taken to Delhi, where she was again tortured by her husband and in-laws. It was alleged that on February 26, 2000 the complainant was taken to Chennai by her husband and mother-in-law. Even at Chennai the complainant was tortured physically and mentally by her husband and mother-in-law. As a result of such physical and mental torture the complainant became mentally dis-balanced and she anyhow managed to escape from the house of the accused persons and came to her father''s house at Kalyani. It was alleged further that because of such in human torture by her husband and in laws she became seriously ill and at present she is residing at her father''s house at Kalyani and is undergoing medical treatments.

On the aforesaid petition of complaint the learned Magistrate being satisfied regarding the prima facie case, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against all the accused persons. It is at this stage the Petitioners came up before this Court with a prayer for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding.

In the present revisional application the only argument advanced by Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, is that the learned Magistrate at Kalyani had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint filed by the complainant, because the offence as alleged was committed outside the jurisdiction of Kalyani. The only point which is to be decided is whether on the basis of allegations made in the petition of complaint, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani will have jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint.

From a perusal of the petition of complaint it appears that the marriage was performed at Kalyani. After marriage the wife (complainant) was taken outside Kalyani, first to Delhi and then to Chennai and in both the places she was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by her husband and in laws and ultimately she was sent back to her father''s house at Kalyani. It is specifically alleged in the petition of complaint that on account of demand for dowry and maltreatment the complainant fell seriously ill at her father''s place at Kalyani, where she is undergoing medical treatment.

"Cruelty" has been defined in Section 498A and it says that it is willful conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to health of a woman, which may be both mental and physical. Cruelty also means harassment by the husband of a woman where it is with a view to coerce her relations to meet unlawful demand of property or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

It is evident from the petition of complaint that the wife/complainant fell ill at Kalyani at her father''s house, where she is undergoing treatment, due to mental shock created by the maltreatment of the accused. It necessarily means that consequences of ill treatment and cruelty ensued at Kalyani at her father''s house. There is no doubt that torture and ill treatment was done outside Kalyani, but it became cruelty on account of the consequence that the wife fell ill due to mental shock. She fell ill at Kalyani.

The provision of Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is wide enough to enable cognizance to be taken either by a court where any offence is committed within the local limits of its jurisdiction, or a court where the consequence ensues. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:

Offence triable, where act is done or consequence ensues- where an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may, be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

In the present case torture and ill treatment was made outside kalyani, but it became cruelty on account of the consequence that the woman fell ill at her father''s house at Kalyani, where she is undergoing treatment. It is also alleged in the petition of complaint that the accused persons never gave her back her ''stridhan'' properties which were given to her at the time of marriage. When the woman is at Kalyani at her father''s house and she is not being called by her husband and in laws, this amounts to harassment and such harassment can be said to have taken place at Kalyani. Rather this harassment may be called to be continued one, which started when demand for dowry was made and torture was inflicted upon the wife outside Kalyani and it continued when she was not called by her husband and other in laws and has been left at her father''s house at Kalyani since March 30, 2000.

I have heard the submissions made by Mr. Bose, but I am unable to accept the same. The complainant/ wife was left at her father''s house at Kalyani after maltreating her for dowry. She fell ill there due to mental shock caused by cruelty of husband and his relatives. In my considered opinion, in such circumstances the court, within whose jurisdiction the wife resided with her father, has got jurisdiction to try the offence. Such offence can be said to be partly committed and continued to be committed when she was maltreated and harassed by her husband in being left with her father.

In view of the discussion made above, I am of the view that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Kalyani has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence u/s 498A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and to try the same.

The present revisional application accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.

The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial and to conclude the same with utmost expedition.