Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 565 (CAL)

Pannalal Pal v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-04-20

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2011
Judgment Ashim Kumar Roy, J. 1. THIS revisional application is for quashing of Domjur P.S. Case. No. 14 of 2008 dated 15.1.2008 corresponding to GR Case No. 92 of 2008 under sections 498A/506/34 of Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Court of 7th Judicial Magistrate at Howrah. 2. FACTUAL background in a nutshell is that on 20.12.2007 Bamali Pal (Das), opposite party No. 2 submitted a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah and the same was sent to Domjur P.S. under section 156(3) of Cr. PC. The said complaint was treated as First Information Report and on the basis of it Domjur P.S. Case No.14 of 2008 dated 15.1.2008 was registered against the petitioners/accused persons. The matter was investigated into and charge sheet has been submitted under sections 498A/506/34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has come up with this application for quashing of the said case particularly on the ground that the learned Court below has no jurisdiction to take up the matter. 3. MR. Kollol Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that no cause of action allegedly mental or physical torture occurred at Domjur in the district of Howrah under the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the learned Court below at Howrah has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. MR. Mondal has cited the decisions reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134, 2009(1) SCC 109 and JT 2006(9) SC 630 to substantiate his contention. Beside it, he has also cited an unreported decision passed in CRR No. 2930 of 2009 by this Court. He has contended further that charge sheet has been submitted under section 498A/506/34 of Indian Penal Code. No charge sheet is before the Court under section 406 of IPC. Therefore, section 181(4) of Cr. PC is not applicable in this case. The citation placed by MR. Mallik is, therefore, not applicable in this matter. He has also contended that the offence is not a continuing one offence and as such the citation placed by MR. Roy is not attracted in connection with this matter. 4. HE has further contended that marriage of the opposite party No.2 and Sukant Pal / petitioner No. 3 was registered on 19.7.2006 at Mumbai. The marriage was solemnized on 26.1.2007 at Mumbai. The opposite party No. 2 Bamali Pal (Das) is residing at Mumbai with her parents. Roy is not attracted in connection with this matter. 4. HE has further contended that marriage of the opposite party No.2 and Sukant Pal / petitioner No. 3 was registered on 19.7.2006 at Mumbai. The marriage was solemnized on 26.1.2007 at Mumbai. The opposite party No. 2 Bamali Pal (Das) is residing at Mumbai with her parents. Therefore, proceeding pending before the learned Court below may be quashed. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the offence is a continuing one and the same took place in part within the junsdiciton of Domjur P.S. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction to take up this matter. He has cited AIR 1997 SC 2465 and 2010(1) SCC (Cri) 436 in support of his contention that the offence is a continuing one. 5. MR. Swapan Mallik, learned Advocate appearing for the State has contended that the point of jurisdiction is to be agitated before the learned Court below and he has taken me through the provisions .of section 181(4) of Cr. PC as well as section 178(d) of Cr. P.C. He has cited a decision reported in 2010(2) C. Cr. L.R. (SC) 779 and has contended that offence took place within the jurisdiction of learned Court below and as such the learned Court has rightly took cognizance of the matter. 6. PERUSED the record minutely. I have specifically gone through the FIR. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the offence occurred after marriage date from 30.7.2006. The petition under section 156(3) was submitted before the learned Court below on 20.12.2008.The petition of complaint discloses the names of witnesses saying Gopal .Mondal, son of late Haradhan Mondal, Ashish Dhara, son of late Soumen Dhara, Susama Das, wife of Tara Pada Das and Tara Pada Das, son of late Panchanan Das. The address of the witnesses did not find space in the petition of complaint. It is noticed further that diary was lodged at Ullashnagar P.S. and at Bhandup (W) P.S. The copy of the diary lodged at Ullashnagar P.S. and Bhandup (W) P.S. have not been annexed with the petition of complaint which has been treated as FIR. The address of the witnesses did not find space in the petition of complaint. It is noticed further that diary was lodged at Ullashnagar P.S. and at Bhandup (W) P.S. The copy of the diary lodged at Ullashnagar P.S. and Bhandup (W) P.S. have not been annexed with the petition of complaint which has been treated as FIR. In Para 6 of the petition of complaint the compliant / O.P. No.2 has stated that complainant rushed back to West Bengal and disclosed her position to her relations and seeing her plight and agony her maternal uncle and other relations somehow agreed to meet the demand of the petitioners and finally the date of marriage was settled on 30.7.2006 for final marriage ceremony. She has also stated in para 7 of the petition that on 30.7.2006 petitioners/accused persons came over to her maternal uncle's house at Nanna under P.S. Domjur and cash dowry of Rs.2 lacs was handed over to accused persons beside it 25 bharis of gold ornaments out of 35 bharis was taken by accused No. 2/mother-in-law Sabita Pal in presence of other accused persons. This is the allegation on the basis of which Mr. S.S. Roy has contended that offence in part took place within the jurisdiction of Domjur P.S. giving jurisdiction to the learned Courts below for taking cognizance of it. It is interesting to note that the name of the maternal uncle and other relations are not coming out from the petition of complaint. The Court is not in a position to understand whether maternal uncle and other relations have been made witnesses in this case or not. 7. ON the other hand, on bare perusal of the petition of complaint it appears that the alleged offence occurred at Mumbai under the State of Maharashtra where the O.P. No. 2 and her parents ordinarily reside. The O.P. No.2 and her parents' ordinarily reside at Camp No. 1, Vasant Chowk, Usha Apartment, Room No. 301, third floor, Ullashnagar, District-Thane, Tal-Kalyan in the State of Maharashtra. Record speaks that O.P. No. 2 was a student of Smt. Kishinlbai Sitaldas Punwanijoi Hiud Academy, Ullashnagar-421003 in the year 1997. The marriage between O.P. No. 2 and Sukant Pal was registered on 19-7-2006 at Mumbai. Marriage ceremony was performed on 26.1.2007 at Mini Land Swimming Pool Hall, Tank Toad, Bhandup (W) in the State of Maharashtra. Record speaks that O.P. No. 2 was a student of Smt. Kishinlbai Sitaldas Punwanijoi Hiud Academy, Ullashnagar-421003 in the year 1997. The marriage between O.P. No. 2 and Sukant Pal was registered on 19-7-2006 at Mumbai. Marriage ceremony was performed on 26.1.2007 at Mini Land Swimming Pool Hall, Tank Toad, Bhandup (W) in the State of Maharashtra. The petition of complaint discloses that the O.P. No. 2 alleged to have rushed back to West Bengal and disclosed her plight to her relation. It is not coming out there from that her parents accompanied her to visit her maternal uncle's place. It seems to me that this para has been added in the complaint to give a colour to this matter so that the jurisdiction of the learned Court below may be brought in. The incident alleged has been reported to the Ullashnagar P.S. as well as Bhandup (W) P.S. and thereafter the O.P. No. 2 / complainant has come over to West Bengal to file a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah under section 156(3) of Cr. PC. 8. ON careful perusal of the matter contained in the FIR and other materials placed in the record it transpires that various allegations have been made against the petitioners allegedly occurred in the matrimonial home at Mumbai. In view of the settled position of law made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Y.Abraham Ajith and Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134; Manish Ratan and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., JT 2006(9) SC 630 and Bhura Ram and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2009(1) SCC (Cri) 109, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah was lacking jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. The charge sheet has been submitted under section 498A/506/34 of IPC suggesting that no prima facie case appears to have been made out to attract an offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. Then in that score the provisions laid down in section 181(4) of Cr. PC and section 178(d) of Cr. PC are not attracted. The decisions cited by Mr. Mallick is also not attracted as it was based on an offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. The citation placed by Mr. S.S. Roy has been dealt with in the case of Manish Ratan and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. PC and section 178(d) of Cr. PC are not attracted. The decisions cited by Mr. Mallick is also not attracted as it was based on an offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. The citation placed by Mr. S.S. Roy has been dealt with in the case of Manish Ratan and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (supra) and the offence in connection with this case cannot be termed as a continuing one. 9. CONSIDERING this background and the settled position of law made by Hon'ble Apex Court, I do find reason to express that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. 10. THE revisional application is thus, allowed. As a consequence thereof the proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah is quashed. THE complaint be returned to O.P. No. 2 who, if so, chooses may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. Urgent xerox certified copes of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.