Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 208
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.
SHIPRA RAJ ROY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
CRR 1843 Of 2006
Decided On : 03/22/2007
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, KRISHNA GHOSH, R.L.Chakraborty, S.BHAGAT, SUDIPTO MOITRA, T.QUASIMUDDIN
The jurisdiction of a court to investigate and try offences is limited to incidents that occur within its territorial jurisdiction. In cases involving offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, the cause of action must arise within the court's jurisdiction for it to exercise jurisdiction.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498A/406 OF IPC - PLACE OF OCCURRENCE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTIONS 179, 181(4), AND 184 OF CRPC - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO INVESTIGATE AND TRY OFFENCES - LIMITATION TO INCIDENTS WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - FIR DISCLOSING COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him and others for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR alleged that the complainant's wife was subjected to cruelty and torture for dowry at their matrimonial home in Mumbai and that the accused persons, including the petitioner, took away her 'stridhan' (dowry articles) and drove her out of the house. The petitioner argued that the Durgapur Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to investigate and try the case as the entire incident took place in Mumbai and that the FIR did not establish proper entrustment of the 'stridhan' articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the FIR disclosed prima facie materials of a cognizable offence and that the Durgapur Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation and trial of the case. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, which held that the expression 'cause of action' in the context of jurisdiction refers to the necessary conditions for maintaining a proceeding, including the alleged infraction and the right itself. In this case, the court found that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Durgapur Magistrate as the entire incident of alleged cruelty and torture took place in Mumbai.
Issues: 1. Whether the Durgapur Magistrate had jurisdiction to investigate and try the offences under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC based on the FIR lodged in Durgapur. 2. Whether the FIR disclosed prima facie materials of a cognizable offence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Durgapur Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint/FIR and proceed with the investigation as no part of the alleged incident of cruelty, torture, or other offences took place within its territorial jurisdiction. 2. The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Gurmeet v. State of M.P., Anil Kumar Saxena v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Subal Sarkar v. Smt. Purabi Sarkar (Das) to determine the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 177, 178, 482, and 484 of the CrPC in cases involving offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. 3. The court emphasized that the expression 'cause of action' encompasses the necessary conditions for maintaining a proceeding, including the alleged infraction and the right itself, and that in this case, the cause of action arose entirely within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the learned ACJM, Durgapur. The court directed the ACJM to return the complaint/FIR to the complainant, who could then file it in the appropriate court for further proceedings.
( 2 ) MR. Sudipto Moitra, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that offence under Section 406 of the. P. C. is not a continuing offence. Elements of Section 406 of the. P. C. starts from entrustment and in the FIR lodged by the informant/o. P. No. 2 it was only stated that during marriage complainant's father gave 41 bhories of gold ornaments and other things as per list and at the time of marriage the relatives of the complainant handed over those things to the accused person. Mr. Moitra submitted that this averment in the FIR does not attract elements of Section 406 of the. P. C. as it fails to establish proper entrustment. In the marriage besides the parents, other relatives, guests and friends offer gifts. The FIR reveals that after the marriage ceremony was over the accused persons and the informant went to mumbai and it does not establish entrustment as the wife herself accompanied the accused persons to Mumba. There was no averment in the FIR that on demand the petitioner and other accused persons refused to return the 'stridhan' articles or converted the same to their own use.
( 3 ) MR. Moitra further submitted that a plain reading of the FIR without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it would reveal clearly that it is a vires of Section 498a of the. P. C. The FIR reveals that the entire incident relating to torture on the wife demanding dowry took place at Mumbai in the flat of accused persons. The entire cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Court and the learned Magistrate of Durgapur is not empowered to take cognizance of the offence and the learned Magistrate of Durgapur was not even competent to sent the written complaint to the concerned O. C. for investigation under Section 156 (3} of the Code treating the complaint as FIR. It was not a FIR under Section 154 of the Code and the languages of Section 156 (3) of the Code are different from the language of Section 154 of the Code. As the entire incident, took place within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Court, the learned Magistrate of Durgapur was not at all competent to direct the concerned police officer of Durgapur N. T. P. S. to cause investigation.
( 4 ) MR. Moitra next contended that there was no injury on the wife and there was no injury report. O. P. No. 2 made no attempt to take hack her child. All the witnesses are the relatives of informant and her parents and they are all men of Durgapur. The entire incident of alleged torture on the wife took place in the matrimonial home at Mumba. Accordingly, continuation of the criminal proceeding in the Court of the learned ACJM at Durgapur is an abuse of the process of law and it should be quashed. In support of his contention mr. Moitra cited the decisions in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 972, Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005)1 Crimes 366 (SC) : (2005)1 C Cr LR (SC) 617, Gurmeet v. State of m. P. reported in (2006)2 Crimes 188 (Madhya Pradesh), Anil Kumar Saxena v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2006)3 Crimes 487 (Chhattisgarh) and subal Sarkar v. Smt. Purabi Sarkar (Das) reported in (2006)3 BCCR (OHC) 61.
( 5 ) MRS. Krishna Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that, from the case diary sufficient materials of Section 498a of the. P. C. have been well established. It has also been established that during, marriage various kinds of articles and gold orn
