JUDGMENT This Writ Application was filed by the petitioner who is the husband of the Respondent No. 13, Smt. Rumi Bhattacharjee (Roy). In this case the respondent No. 13, Smt. Rumi Bhattacharjee, the wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint against the petitioner at the Amherst Street Police Station in respect of commission of offence under section 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on the basis of the said complaint filed by the respondent No. 13, the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station took cognizance and started a case against the husband of the respondent No. 13, namely, the petition therein and thereafter on 30th of January, 1987 the premises of the petitioner was searched and various articles and things were seized by the police authorities. Thereafter it is also alleged that the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging, the commission of offence by the petitioner under section 498A/403 of the Indian Penal Code and that the said petition was moved before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 9th January, 1987 under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the learned Magistrate by an order passed therein referred the matter to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar for investigating the case. 2. In this case the wife of the petitioner filed the criminal case against her husband namely the writ petitioner alleging that the respondent No. 13 was married with the petitioner on 2nd December, 1984 and after the marriage the wife started residing with the petitioner along with other members of the petitioner's family at 130/1B, Brahmo Samaj Road at Behala. It was also alleged that the petitioner and other members of the petitioner's family started misbehaviouring with the wife, the respondent No. 13 herein and started pressurising the wife for bringing various luxurious commodities like V.C.R., Coloured T.V. etc. etc. In the writ petition the petitioner annexed a copy of the complaint filed by one Smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee, the sister of the petitioner, by which the said smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station on 31st January, 1987. etc. In the writ petition the petitioner annexed a copy of the complaint filed by one Smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee, the sister of the petitioner, by which the said smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station on 31st January, 1987. In the said complaint it was alleged that while leaving the place of the petitioner on 30th of January, 1987, the wife of the petitioner, namely, the respondent No. 13 herein had also taken some of her ornaments which it was alleged to have been made by Smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee for her marriage with her own money and with the money of her family. In the said complaint there is also allegation of taking away some of the valuable sarees by the respondent No. 13 while leaving her husband's place. It also appears that on 28th of March, 1987 the respondent No. 13, the wife of the petitioner, had also lodged a complaint with the Office-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station with a copy thereof to the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station, alleging the cruelty alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the members of the petitioner's family on her. It also appears that on 3.12.86, the wife of the petitioner was also lodged another diary with the Amherst Street Police Station stating that on that date when the wife of the petitioner went to meet with the petitioner as per previous arrangement at the crossing of Bechu Chatterjee Street and Bidhan Sarani, the petitioner also threatened her with dire consequences unless she surrenders to the parents of the petitioner at Behala ignoring all their physical and mental torture upon her. The writ petitioner, namely the husband of the respondent No. 13, filed this Writ Application alleging that :- (a) that the complaint filed by the wife, respondent, No. 13 did not disclose any offence under section 498A of the Indian, Penal Code. Inasmuch as the necessary ingredients constituting an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code had not been disclosed in the complaint and as such the learned Magistrate had no Jurisdiction to direct the police authority; namely the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department to investigate the matter. Inasmuch as the necessary ingredients constituting an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code had not been disclosed in the complaint and as such the learned Magistrate had no Jurisdiction to direct the police authority; namely the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department to investigate the matter. (b) That the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable only if information relating to the Commission of offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence and that in the instant case, the respondent No. 13, namely, the, wife of the petitioner, did not lodge any complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station within his jurisdiction and as such the offence alleged, under, section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, Act, was not and could not be considered as a cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as a result thereof, the learned Magistrate had also no jurisdiction to direct the police authority to make any, investigation in respect of the non-cognizable offence. (c) That the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 13 against the petitioner before the, Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station and the petition of complaint filed before the learned Magistrate was illegal inasmuch as the offence alleged to have been committed within Behala Police Station is within the jurisdiction of District North 24 parganas and as such neither the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station nor the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had any jurisdiction to deal with it or pass any order in the matter. (d) That the word "any Magistrate" as mentioned in section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure means only the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, and that in the instant case, according to the petitioner, the offence was alleged to have been committed in Behala Police Station which was outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and as such the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was void and is liable to be quashed by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. (e) That the attending and/or surrounding facts and circumstances of the case clearly established that it was highly improbable and/or impossible on the part of the petitioner to commit such offence as alleged by the respondent No. 13, the wife of the petitioner in the petition of complaint which also it is alleged to have been lodged at the instance of the father of the respondent No. 13 namely, the father-in-law of the petitioner who is a police officer with a designed motive and as such, such malafide investigation should be quashed by this court. 3. It was contended by Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petition of complaint filed by the respondent No. 13 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, did not disclose any offence whatsoever of cognizable nature. In paragraph 10 of the petition of complaint, it was stated that- "during bet stay in the matrimonial house, your petitioner was not provided with sufficient food while she was carrying during the months of March & April, 85, she was forced to do all the household works from morning .to night and owing to such hard labour she became seriously ill on 1st May, 1985 and was transferred to her father's place by the accused and his sister. On 2nd May, the petitioner was admitted in the Marwari Relief Society Hospital, Amherst Street and was bleeded profusely and that resulted in mis-carriage. While your petitioner stayed with her mother for near about three months at the above-noted address, the accused on several occasions visited your petitioner and abused and humiliated your petitioner in front of her parent even and she was very much mentally depressed for such inhuman behaviour." In paragraph 11 of the said complaint, it was stated that on 6.8.85 the wife of the petitioner went to her matrimonial house but found no change in the petitioner and it was alleged that the petitioner behaved with her very rudely and went up to the extent of manhandling and she was subjected to inhuman and physical torture and the situation become so much so graved that at that time the wife thought of committing suicide to end her life. In paragraph 13 of the said complaint, it was alleged that when she had to leave the matrimonial house and staying with her father on 28.3.86, the petitioner all on a sudden came to his father-in-law's house and abused her in most filthy language. In paragraph 15 of the said petition, it was alleged that the facts and circumstances revealed that the petitioner perpetrated inhuman mental and physical torture upon the wife and also mis-appropriated all her ornaments and belongings and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 498A & 403 of the Indian Penal Code and that it was also stated that the said learned Magistrate had jurisdiction in this matter, as torture was also caused on her within the jurisdiction of the said Court. In the said petition of complaint, it was also alleged that the petitioner had removed her ornaments elsewhere from the locker with dishonest intention and has mis-appropriated the same. 4. It is next submitted by Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate for the petitioner that in order to establish the commission of offence under section 498A of the Indian, Penal Code, which provides that "whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such women to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a time which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." In the explanation to the said section it is provided that "cruelty" means- "(a) any wilfull conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the women: or (b) harassment of the women where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 5. In this connection Mr. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate for petitioner referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of (1) Stare of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha reported in AIR 1982 SC page 949 and relied on para 65 at page 972, wherein, it was held by the Supreme Court that whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made, is disclosed or not, the Court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R, and the Court may in appropriate case take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It was also held that on consideration of all the relevant materials, the Court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not and if on consideration of the relevant materials the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed the Court will, normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the otherhand, the Court on consideration of the relevant materials, is satisfied that no offence is disclosed it will be duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to slop the same to prevent any kind of un-called for and unnecessary harassment to an individual. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Chatterjee on the decision of the Privy Council of (2) King Emperor v. Khweja Nazir Ahmed reported in, 49 Calcutta Weekly Notes 191 and at page 195 it was observed by the Privy Council that "No doubt if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation". Mr., Chatterjee in order to establish that the surrounding circumstances preceding the filing of the complaint clearly established that it was highly impossible and/or improbable on the part of the petitioner to commit any such offence in so far as the respondent No. 13, the wife of the petitioner is concerned and referred to xerox copies of several letters alleged to have, been written by the petitioner to his wife and vice versa and several other correspondences that passed between the parents of the respective parties. It was submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that in the instant case the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acted illegally and had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner in complaint and pass and order directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department to investigate into the complaint filed by the wife wherein it was alleged the commission of offence under section 498A and section 403 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed, if any took place, within the jurisdiction of the Behala Police Station which was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and as such the order of the learned Magistrate was on the face of it without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee submitted that under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any Magistrate empowered under section 190 of the said Code may order for an investigation and that this investigation is confined to cases of cognizable offence which took place within the jurisdiction of the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station and as such as the offence alleged to have been committed within Behala Police Station cannot be dealt with by the Magistrate having no jurisdiction over the said Police Station. Reference was also made to the provision of section 177 of the said Code which provides that every offence shall ordinary be enquired into and tried by a Court within the jurisdiction it was committed. Relying on this provision of the Indian Penal Code it was argued by Mr. Chatterjee that as the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the matter could not be enquired into or tried by the learned Magistrate. It was further alleged that the complaint was, lodged by the wife against the petitioner ten months after the date when the wife had left the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case the said complaint could not have been entertained by the learned Magistrate inasmuch as there is no reason and/or ground for lodging complaint at a belated stage. It was further submitted that it was highly improbable in. the facts and circumstances of the case to hold that the petitioner had not at all committed any offence. It was further submitted that it was highly improbable in. the facts and circumstances of the case to hold that the petitioner had not at all committed any offence. It was further alleged that the entire proceeding was nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and the petitioner being an innocent person should not be allowed to be harassed by the Police authority on the basis of a false complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner, who happens to be a daughter of a police officer who is allegedly bolding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Mr. Chatterjee further alleged that the xerox copies of the letters on which reliance was placed by the wife in her Affidavit-in-opposition should not at all be relied by this Court inasmuch as according to the petitioner, the letters were alleged to have been interpolated by the wife and some portions of the letters which if disclosed, would go in favour of the petitioner, had been suppressed, altered and/or tempered by the wife with a designed motive. It was also suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that conduct of the wife as appearing in the matter from the suppression of the material parts of the letters and interpolation, it must be held that the wife of the petitioner is in the habit of suppressing the truth and tampering the evidence and the conduct of the wife must be held to be highly questionable. 6. Mr. Madan Mohan Mallick the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the wife, the respondent No. 13 contended in the first place that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 13, against the petitioner clearly disclosed the offence under section 498A as well as under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and referred to several paragraphs of the complaint filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Mr. Mallick also relied on the provisions of section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides that, "when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and on consequence which has ensued, the offence will be enquired into or tried by a Court whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or consequence has ensured." Mr. Mallick relied on para 10 of the petition of complaint in order to establish that the consequence had been felt by the respondent No. 13, within the jurisdiction of Amherst Street Police Station and further it was contended that the petitioner had not only tortured the wife within the Behala Police Station but constructively committed the said offence also within the jurisdiction of Amherst Street Police Station by creating mental pressure and torture and further the incidents or insults or injury mental or physical, had also been committed within Amherst Street Police Station. It was further stated by Mr. Mallick that in this case the petitioner is guilty of cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of the Indian, Penal Code, inasmuch as, the wife had been forced for meeting within the unlawful demand for T.V., V.C.R. and other valuable articles within the jurisdiction of Amherst Street Police Station when the wife started staying with her father. It was also contended by Mr. Mallick that the word "any offence" as provided in the section 191 should not be given any narrower meaning and according to him the learned, Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence which includes cognizable and/or non-cognizable, inasmuch as, in section 190 of the Code it is not provided that the Magistrate can take only cognizance of any cognizable offence. Mr. Mallick, submitted that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha (Supra) on which reliance was placed by Mr. Chatterjee had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was pointed out that in that case before the Supreme Court an F.I.R. was lodged by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation against the firm and its partners alleging the commission of offence under section 3 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and that it was submitted that, in that case there was some public elements and further the F.I.R. was lodged by a state machinery and that in the facts of this case the Supreme Court observed that if the complaint did not disclose any offence in that event the police had no jurisdiction to investigate. In the case before the Supreme Court the prayer was for a writ of Mandamus directing the State Government and its concerned officers to forthwith re-call, cancel and withdraw the first information report and all proceedings taken on the basis thereof. In that case on the basis of an F.I.R. searches and seizures were made at random and arrest was also made in pursuance of the said F.I.R., whereby a large number of people were affected and that case cannot be said to an authority for the proposition that whenever a private individual like that of the respondent No. 13 who is the wife of the petitioner, files any complaint, that complaint or the F.I.R. filed by the wife could be called in question by the Writ Court on the ground that the complaint did not fully disclose commission of offence. It was not an act of a officer of the Government or a Statutory Authority and that such acts of private individual should not be interfered with by this Court in this jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 13, the wife of the petitioner is admittedly a private individual. 7. Mr. Mallick referred to paragraphs 5 to 9 of the petition of complaint to establish that the respondent No. 13, has made out a case under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as well as a case under section 403 of the said Code against the petitioner and that in such matter the Court should not intervene at this stage which would be contrary to justice. 8. In this case it is an admitted fact and not denied by the petitioner that before moving this Writ Application, the petitioner also filed an application for anticipatory bail in the matter before the Division Bench, consisting of the Their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee and the Hon'ble Mr. 8. In this case it is an admitted fact and not denied by the petitioner that before moving this Writ Application, the petitioner also filed an application for anticipatory bail in the matter before the Division Bench, consisting of the Their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Gopal Mukherjee and on 10th February, 1987 the said application for anticipatory bail was rejected and in that instant writ application the petitioner had suppressed this material fact and by the suppression of this material fact moved this writ application before A.K. Sengupta, J. and obtained an interim order on 23rd February, 1987 to the following effect:- "Issue an order of Injunction restraining the respondents from proceedings with the said impugned criminal proceeding under section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code being Case No. 15 dated 13.1.87 the basis of the impugned F.I.R. dated 9.1.87 and also direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner without leave of the Court". 9. The writ petition as it appears was moved without giving any notice to the respondent No. 13 and thereafter the respondent No. 13, namely, the wife of the petitioner, filed an application for vacating of the interim order and thereafter it was agreed by the parties that instead of disposing, of the application for vacating the interim order, the main writ application should be disposed of and accordingly the main writ application was heard on affidavits. 10. The fact that the writ petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Division Bench consisting of their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Gopal Mukherjee was rejected on 10th February, 1987 has not been denied by the petitioner but the fact of moving such an application for anticipatory bail before the Division Bench of this Court and rejection thereof by the said Division Bench on 10th of February, 1987 had been totally suppressed in the writ application and the instant writ application was moved on 23rd of February, 1987. In the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of the fact that the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary remedy and it is firmly established principle that a petitioner who intends to get relief in the writ jurisdiction, must come with clean hands. In the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of the fact that the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary remedy and it is firmly established principle that a petitioner who intends to get relief in the writ jurisdiction, must come with clean hands. In this case if the petitioner had disclosed the fact that the anticipatory bail was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court a few days prior to moving of this writ application, in that event, the learned Judge who passed the interim order in this matter on 27th of February, 1987, could net have passed an interim order by which the police authorities were restrained from arresting the, petitioner without the leave of the Court. In other words, what the petitioner could not get from Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner obtained the self same relief from a Single Judge of this court on a writ application by suppression of material facts. In my view it was net at all fair and proper on the part of the petitioner to suppress this material fact in the writ application and that because of this inequitable conduct en the part of the petitioner, in my view, the petitioner had disentitled himself from obtaining any relief from this writ jurisdiction. In the instant, case the respondent No. 13, established a positive mis-representation made by the petitioner, in order to obtain an order from, this Court. It was the duty of the part of the petitioner to disclose this particular fact in the writ application and that non-disclosure of this material fact had resulted in issuing the order as stated above which the petitioner was not entitled to get in the facts and circumstances, in view of the facts that such prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. 11. 11. Incidentally it may be mentioned that moving an application for anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case also suggests as submitted by the Respondent wife that the petitioner was conscious of having concerned in some offences and that such guilty conscious on the part of the petitioner was also suggestive in the background of this case, though the petitioner in the writ petition had alleged that as because the father-in-law of the petitioner, namely the respondent No. 11, was police officer and as such the petitioner was harassed taking advantage of his power and position and by abuse of his position and it was also suggested that as because the father-in-law was a police officer, the entire police machinery was brought in the picture to harass and/or to humiliate the petitioner unnecessarily. This aspect of the matter does not required to be considered particularly in view of the fact that in the writ petition there was no such specific allegation of misuse and abuse of the position of the respondent No. 11, had been made out. The only, case that has been made in the writ petition particularly at paragraph 27 is that since the respondent No. 13 had started a proceeding under sections 498A & 403 of the Indian Penal Code which is non-bailable offence, the police authority was trying to arrest the petitioner and if the police authority detained the petitioner for two consecutive days, the petitioner would loose his job and that it was stated by the petitioner "that at any moment the respondent will arrest your petitioner as the respondent No. 13 is a Police Personnel and attached with Amherst Street Police Station". This allegation on the face of it cannot have any factual basis inasmuch as the learned Magistrate directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department to investigate the matter on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner and when an investigation has been undertaken by a senior I.P.S. Officer holding the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police it is difficult to believe that the father of the wife, namely, the father-in-law of the petitioner holding a lower rank in the Calcutta Police would be able to influence the Deputy Commissioner of Police and secondly the matter was not being investigated by the Amherst Street Police Station but by Detective Department under the control of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department and thirdly, this is not the law of the land that if a person is detained for two consecutive days, one has to loose his permanent job, if any. 12. With regard to the submissions made by Mr. Chatterjee that the petition of complaint did not disclose any offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, requires a careful consideration. 13. The allegation made by •the wife against the petitioner is a commission of an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 403 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Chatterjee's contention is that even assuming that the allegations made in the petition of complaint are correct, the same does not constitute an offence under section 498A of the said Act and in support of this contention Mr. Chatterjee relied on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case. In the case referred to, the Supreme Court of India did not at all lay down any rigid proposition that in such a case the Court has to confine itself only to the allegations made in the complaint itself. But the Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R. and the Court may on appropriate cases also take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. But the Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F.I.R. and the Court may on appropriate cases also take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It may be mentioned that in the abovementioned case the question that called consideration by Supreme Court was whether the accused in the aforesaid case carried on any activity which comes within the purview of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 or not. In that case before lodging the F.I.R. by the Officers of the Bureau of Investigation Govt. of West Bengal thorough enquiry was made and in that case and all the materials necessary for the purpose of trial were available on records and that from the said records and documents it transpired that the laid said persons could not be said to have violated the said Act. But in the instant case the investigation had not yet been started and/or concluded by the Police authority and in such case the whole thing is dependent on oral and circumstantial evidences which had to be gone in details into during investigation and/or trial. It would be rather difficult to hold that in all such cases, the Court should quash the investigation only on examination of the complaint, if the same did not disclose any cognizable offence punishable under the law. As held by the Supreme Court that the court would also take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances of the case apart from the facts appearing in the complaints or F.I.R. In this case the relevant facts and circumstances of the case means, in my view, the oral evidences and other materials which had not yet come into the picture. In this case, fact remains that the respondent No. 13 has specifically• alleged mental and physical torture for bringing various commodities and articles and it is also alleged that became of such torture, the wife of the petitioner sometimes was under the feeling to commit suicide. In this particular case the complaint has not been filed by an governmental machinery and/or investigating agency on the contrary it has been filed by an Indian housewife against her husband. In this particular case the complaint has not been filed by an governmental machinery and/or investigating agency on the contrary it has been filed by an Indian housewife against her husband. In the present social condition of our country, it is a matter of common knowledge that in some cases married woman were subjected to torture and cruelty which are resulted several incidents and when the Parliament has enacted section 498A of the said Act by amendment to meet with such situation and to protect the married woman, this Court should not restrict or limit the scope and object of the said enactment. In my view considering the background in which section 498A of the said Act was enacted, the object of, the legislation is to be extended so that the mischief sought to be remedied is achieved. If the contention of Mr. Chatterjee had to be accepted the court has to give an interpretation, which would be, in my view, destructive of the very intention of the Parliament for which the enactment was made and further the Court should not try to interpret a provision of an enactment which would lead to injustice and which would be contrary to the purpose of the statute; Accordingly I am not inclined to restrict the scope and ambit of the section 498A of the said Act having regard to the declared object or the enactment and the evil, sought to be remedied. On the basis of the materials before the Court, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the allegations made or disclosed against the petitioner, prima-facie did not constitute an offence as alleged. In this particular case not only a complaint was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station, but a copy whereof was also forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the condition under which the, cognizance would be taken under section 498Aof the said Act, had not been fulfilled. 14. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case the condition under which the, cognizance would be taken under section 498Aof the said Act, had not been fulfilled. 14. In the, facts and circumstances of the case when it is evident that a complaint was lodged by the wife against the husband before the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station and thereafter filed a petition of complaint before the learned Magistrate whereupon the learned Magistrate directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department to investigate the case, clearly becomes cognizable and the necessary condition in this behalf regarding lodging of complaint before the Officer-in-Charge be, the person concerned had also been fulfilled. 15. With regard to the next submission of Mr. Chatterjee that the Amherst Street Polite Station and/or the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction cannot also be accepted at this stage, inasmuch as it is true that the matrimonial home of the respondent No. 13 was situated within the Police Station of Behala but the wife was staying within Amherst Street Police Station at her father's place where it appears from the petition of complaint, has visited the said place and being abused and humiliated by the petitioner and that this allegation clearly suggests that constructively mental pressure upon the wife was also continued by the petitioner even at her father's place which was, within the jurisdiction of Amherst Street Police Station and as such in view of the provision of section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence is liable where the act is done or consequence ensues. In this case the cruelty, upon the wife alleged to have continued even within the jurisdiction of the Amherst Street Police Station and as such in my view at this stage on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint it is wholly pre-mature to hold that the offence under section 498A of the said Act was not committed within the jurisdiction of the Amherst Street Police Station where it is alleged that the writ petitioner had occasion to visit and to abuse and humiliate the wife which it appeared likely to cause it mental pressure which might ultimately resulted in suicide. In view of the reason hereinbefore given I am not inclined to accept the submission that the learned Magistrate who passed the order directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police who was directed to investigate the case, was passed without jurisdiction and was liable to he quashed in the writ jurisdiction. In course of the investigation or the trial, if it transpires that there is any question of errors of jurisdiction the learned Magistrate may refer to the matter to the proper court and at this stage it is not prosper to entertain this objection. Considering the facts and circumstances if such an objection is entrained at this stage that would defeat the ends of justice. 16. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Chatterjee that the attending and/or surrounding circumstances clearly indicated that it was highly improbable on the part petitioner to commit such an offence as alleged. In this connection reference was made by Mr. Chatterjee to a large number of xerox copies of letters. In a matter like this where the disputes and differences between the husband and wife, it is not be proper to go into the contents of the letters at this stage to evaluate the situation but one thing is clear that the petitioner has annexed xerox copies of some letters which were written by the petitioner to his wife and that merely annexing a copy and/or a xerox copy of the letter without formally proving the same and without producing any evidence that the same was posted or despatched in usual manner, the Court can not treat the same as a valid piece of evidence for the purpose of stopping the investigation by exercise of high perogative writ. It may be further mentioned that it appears that it was unusual and unnatural on the part of the husband to keep xerox copies of each and every letters before posting the same to his wife communicating love and referring private affairs. In my view this unusual course of human conduct is clearly apparent in this case and as such I am not inclined to place any reliance on such letters and on the contents thereof at this stage when this letter could be placed at the investigation and/or the trial for proper consideration and examination. In view of that it is also pre-matured to make any comment on the allegation made by Mr. In view of that it is also pre-matured to make any comment on the allegation made by Mr. Chatterjee's client that the wife had indulged in adding and altering the contents of the letters, particularly in view of the fact that it is also possible and such possibility could not ruled out that after keeping xerox copies of the letters, addition and alteration in such letter could be made from the end of the petitioner and merely on the basis of an allegation made in this behalf I am not inclined to make any comment at this stage regarding the allegation of addition and alteration in the letters that were passed by and between the petitioner and his wife. Accordingly all the contentions of the petitioner fail and in the facts and circumstances of the case in my view it would be highly improbable and in equitable on the part of this court to stop such an investigation at this stage initiated at the instance of the wife and when the same is being investigated by a senior I.P.S. Officer holding the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, who is reasonably respected to make a fair and proper enquiry and the petitioner cannot have any apprehension that the petitioner would be victimized un-justly or improperly by such investigation. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed and all interim orders are vacated with costs assessed as 15 Gold mohurs.