JUDGMENT : Tirthankar Ghosh, J. 1. The present revisional application has been preferred in respect of two cases being Darjeeling (Sadar) P.S. Case no. 23 of 1998 dated 08.02.1998 (corresponding to GR case no. 38 of 1998) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending before the then learned SDJM, Darjeeling and another case being the complaint case no. 197 of 1998 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Samastipur under Section 498A/379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It would be pertinent to state that Darjeeling (Sadar) Police Station case no. 23 of 1998 dated 08.02.1998 was initiated at the instance of Smt. Nisha Agarwal (Opposite Party no.2) while complaint case no. 197/98 was initiated by Ram Ratan Khemka being the father of the opposite party no.2. The allegations made in the letter of complaint addressed to the Officer-in-charge Darjeeling (Sadar) police station by the opposite party no.2 namely Nisha Agarwal were to the effect that she was married to Sanjoy Agarwal on 20.02.1996 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after about 1-2 months of marriage her father-in-law and brother-in-law demanded a further sum of Rs.15-20 lakhs and represented that if such amount is not paid they would not allow her to stay at the matrimonial home peacefully. It has also been alleged that she was assaulted in the month of May, 1996 by her father-in-law and brother-in-law with fist and blows and it was represented that such assault was a trailer of the picture and she should expect much more to happen. Unable to bear such torture the opposite party no.2 informed the incident to her father, when her brother came in June, 1996, with folded hands, however, her father-in-law refused to accept an apology. During the said period she was expecting a baby and had to leave with her brother for Samastipur. On or about July, 1996 at the intervention of some of the relations she returned back to her matrimonial home, however, after 8-10 days her father-in-law and elder brother-in-law started assaulting her and such assault become a routine matter. As a result of which her health deteriorated and being afraid of miscarriage she was admitted by her husband at a local nursing home where she remained for about 10 days and thereafter she was send back to her parental home. As a result of which her health deteriorated and being afraid of miscarriage she was admitted by her husband at a local nursing home where she remained for about 10 days and thereafter she was send back to her parental home. On 18th November, she gave birth to a female child and after that she was discharged from the nursing home and then she started staying at her matrimonial home. On December, 1996 her father-in-law abused her with filthy languages and when her husband protested, her father-in-law lodged a complaint with the police station for which her husband was detained. On her assertion before the police authorities that she was being tortured and on a false pretext her husband has been detained at the instance of her father-in-law, her husband was released from the police station. Thereafter her father-in-law put a padlock on her room so that she could not enter her room. She also alleged that her father-in-law and elder brother-in-law tried to pour kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire, however her husband intervened and saved her life. She alleged that all the gold jewelleries were taken away by her father-in-law and retained by him, however, at the intervention of her brother-in-law and sister-in-law the jewelleries were kept in a joint locker. However the key was retained by her father-in-law. Being unable to tolerate such torture, assault, abuse and repeated chain of incidents the complainant become mentally ill and on or about November, 1997 she went back to her parental home at Samastipur. Later on, her husband also came down to Samastipur as her father-in-law refused him to enter and locked the room. On repeated occasions her brother approached for amicably settling the issues but her father-in-law was adamant for the demand of money which he initially demanded. Her brother was also assaulted by some of the members of the matrimonial home and lastly on 06.02.1998 when she went to her matrimonial home she was refused any entry and had to stay with her father at Hotel Apsara. Accordingly, she lodged the complaint on 08.02.1998. 3. Records reflect that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint Darjeeling (Sadar) P.S. Case no. 23 of 1998 dated 08.02.1998 was registered and on completion of investigation police authorities submitted charge-sheet no. Accordingly, she lodged the complaint on 08.02.1998. 3. Records reflect that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint Darjeeling (Sadar) P.S. Case no. 23 of 1998 dated 08.02.1998 was registered and on completion of investigation police authorities submitted charge-sheet no. 62/98 dated 19.08.1998 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against Hari Krishna Agarwal, Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Gopi Kishan Agarwal and Monish Agarwal. 4. Mr. Abhijit Basu Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that another case on the self same facts were initiated by the father of Nisha Agarwal namely, Ram Ratan Khemka. So far as the said case is concerned the case was instituted in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur being CR Case No. 197/98 (TR Case No.695/2000) and the order dated 29.08.98 reflect that the learned Magistrate after examination of the initial evidence of the complainant and four witnesses namely, Nisha Agarwal, Suresh Kumr Khemka, Krishna Kumar Jalal and Sanjay Agarwal was pleased to hold that a case under Section 498A/379 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and as such issued summons against the accused persons. It has been submitted that the present case was initiated at a later point of time on the selfsame subject matter. The learned advocate drew the attention of this Court to Section 186(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is set out below: “S. 186 (b): if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued.” 5. During the hearing of the revisional application a report was called from Darjeeling (Sadar) police station regarding the case pending at Darjeeling and it has been reported by the Officer concerned who submitted the report that the learned trial Court is awaiting an order from this Court. It would be apposite to state that the allegations in the letter of complaint at Darjeeling on the basis of which the case was registered, the incident of alleged torture and retention of the jewelleries were committed within the jurisdiction of the police station of Darjeeling. 6. It would be apposite to state that the allegations in the letter of complaint at Darjeeling on the basis of which the case was registered, the incident of alleged torture and retention of the jewelleries were committed within the jurisdiction of the police station of Darjeeling. 6. I have also taken into account the fact that there were allegations relating to physical and mental torture and retention of the gold ornaments along with other allegations in the complaint case initiated at Samastipur. 7. In State of West Bengal –Vs. – Mr. Tarique Akhtar @ Raja reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 395 in similar circumstances it has been held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court that if on the self same facts two cases are registered even in different states then in that case the High Court where the first case was initiated will have jurisdiction to interfere in respect of the proceedings which is outside its jurisdiction also. 8. Having regard to the principle settled in the aforesaid judgment and the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the case at Samastipur was on self same set of facts which were subsequently initiated after Darjeeling (Sadar) Police Station case was registered for investigation. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the proceeding before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, being CR Case No. 197/98 (TR Case No.695/2000) should be quashed. 9. It is directed that the proceedings before the Court at Darjeeling (Sadar) would continue and be taken to its logical conclusion. The learned trial Court is directed to take steps so that the case should expedite as more than 23 years have passed in the meantime. 10. Accordingly, CRR 2684 of 1999 is disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. 12. Pending Applications, if any, are consequently disposed of. 13. Department is directed to send back the Lower Court Records and communicate this judgment to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling within a period of 7 days so that effective steps are taken by the learned trial Court. 14. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent Xerox certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.