Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 686 (CAL)

Sanjoy Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

2014-07-25

R.K.BAG

body2014
JUDGMENT R.K. Bag, J. The affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners in connection with CRR 3635 of 2013 and the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners/applicants in connection with CRAN 2717 of 2014 are accepted. 2. By filing one application being CRAN 2717 of 2014 the petitioners/applicants have prayed for stay of further proceedings of G.R. Case No. 2450 of 2011 pending before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Islampur till the disposal of the criminal revision. Since the criminal revision is taken up for final hearing, the application being CRAN 2717 of 2014 has become infructuous and as such the same is disposed of. 3. This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings being G.R. Case No. 2450 of 2011 arising out of Islampur Police Station Case No. 830 dated 09.12.2011 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur. 4. It appears from the materials on that that the opposite party no.2 lodged complaint against the present petitioners and thereby Islampur Police Station Case No. 830 dated 09.12.2011 was started. The police took up the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners on 20.04.2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. With the above factual matrix, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the alleged offence took place at Salt Lake City, Calcutta in the matrimonial home of the opposite party no.2 and as such learned Magistrate at Islampur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Amarta Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State contends that the offences took place partly within the territorial jurisdiction of Islampur and partly within the territorial jurisdiction of Bidhannagar and as such learned Magistrate of Bidhannagar and learned Magistrate of Islampur have the jurisdiction to try the offences as laid down in Section 178 (c) and (d) and Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. 7. On perusal of the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 which is treated as First Information Report of the instant case, I find that the opposite party no.2 was married to the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 is residing at Ramkrishna Pally, Islampur, District Uttar Dinajpur and the petitioner no.1 has been residing in his house at Sector 1, Bidhhanagar, Calcutta. The contents of the written complaint treated as First Information Report indicate that major part of the offences took place in the house of the opposite party no.2 within the territorial jurisdiction of Islampur and some parts of the offences took place in the house of the petitioner no.1 within the territorial jurisdiction of Bidhannagar. On perusal of statements of witnesses like Md. Manzar Alam, Sankar Kundu and Saibal Mukherjee, I find that part of the offences took place in the house of the opposite party no.2 within the territorial jurisdiction of Islampur. Since the part of the offences took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Islampur, I am of the view that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Islampur has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in question and to try the case. My view in this regard gets support from the provisions of Section 178 (d) and Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. I am inclined to rely on the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “Satvinder Kaur V State” reported in 1999 SCC (Cr.) 1503, which is as follows : - (i) The S.H.O. of the police station has statutory authority under Section 156 Cr. P. C. to investigate any cognizable case for which an F.I.R. is lodged. Section 156(2), Cr. P. C. contains an embargo that no proceedings of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence, ii) At the stage of investigation there is no question of interference under Section 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction, (iii) After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at a conclusion that cause of action for lodging F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report under Section 170, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction, (iii) After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at a conclusion that cause of action for lodging F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report under Section 170, Cr. P. C. as to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Moreover, if the investigating officer arrives at a conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then F.I.R. can also be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed for investigation. 9. In view of my findings, I am constrained to hold that both learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bidhannagar and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Islampur have the jurisdiction to try the offences in question and as a result the instant criminal case need not be transferred to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, because the opposite party no.2 being the de facto complaint of the case is residing in the house of her parents at Islampur. It is pertinent to point that that the materials on record do not indicate in favour of invoking power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of quashing the instant criminal proceeding. The criminal revision is, thus, disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent down to learned court below for favour of information and necessary action.