A court has jurisdiction to try an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust only if the offence was committed within its local jurisdiction.

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE. J

1. SALANPUR Police Station initiated a proceeding under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners in terms of an order, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Asansole under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On perusal of the petition filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following facts reveled :-

i) Petitioner No. 2 married opposite party No. 2 after taking dowry of Rs. 2.51 lakh in cash apart from gold ornaments, furniture, utensils and other gifts. ii) The respondent No. 2 went to her matrimonial home along with the dowry. Her in-laws took all the gold ornaments from her whereas the cash was taken by the husband. iii) There was constant pressure by the in-laws for money for purchasing a flat. On that score, there was discord between the couple. iv) As a result, she left her matrimonial home. v) She prayed for return of the Stridhan properties and punishment under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. THE learned Magistrate perused the petition and observed that there was no prima facie evidence of ownership regarding the listed articles and refused to issue search warrant at that stage. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 approached the learned Sessions Judge for revision. The Additional Sessions Judge, Third Court, Asansole considered the prayer and allowed the application on contest by setting aside the order of the Court below. He allowed prayer for search and seizure, hence, the applications for revision by the petitioners. In course of hearing I adjourned the matter from time to time so that the matter could be resolved. However, I was unsuccessful. The matter was then heard.

3. MR. Shiladitya Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before me that very initiation of the proceeding under Section 406 was bad and illegal and nonest in the eye of law as the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction to entertain the same. Mr. Sanyal contended that the proceeding was initiated under Section 406 for issuance of the search warrant for the Stridhan properties, which, according to the respondent, were taken away by her in-laws at her matrimonial home. The petitioners were residents of Hooghly within the jurisdiction of Chinsurah Police Station. The learned Magistrate did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain any application pertaining to an offence allegedly committed within the territorial limits of Chinsurah Police Station.

4. TO support his contentions, Mr. Sanyal cited the following three decisions :-

i) 2004 Supreme Court cases (Criminal) Page- 2134 (Y.Abraham Ajith and others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another). ii) 2007 Volume No. I Calcuta Criminal Law Reporter Page-800 (Shipra Raj Ray Vs. The State of West Bengal and another) iii) 2010 Volum No. I Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter Page-595 (Shree Binod Kumar Sil and others Vs. the State of West Bengal and another).

Opposing the application, Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, being the wife contended that the entrustment of the dowry articles was made in Asansole. Hence, the Asansole Court was competent to try the offence. In this regard, he relied on Section 181 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also contended that initially the case was initiated under Section 406, later on Section 498(A) was added.

5. TO support his contentions, Mr. Chattopadhyay relied on the decision itself which are follows:-

i) 1996 Criminal Law Journal Page -732 (Raja Ram Pattnaik- Vs- Indian Metal and Ferro alloys Ltd.) ii) 2007 Volume-II Calcutta Criminal law Reporter page- 46 (Manish Ratan and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) iii) 2007 Volume-II Calcutta Criminal law Reporter Page-231 Smt. Ranu Chowdhury Nee Guha Thakurta Vs. Sri. Satyajit Guha Thakurta and another

6. ON a combined consideration of the rival contentions, the controversy narrows down to o