Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Asish Baran Mukhrjee. J.
Kajal Mukherjee & Ors.
Vs.
The State of W.B. & Ors.
Cr. Revision No. 195/97
Decided On : May 13, 1998
JURISDICTION - SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 179 AND 182(4) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - INTERPRETATION - ORDER DIRECTING INVESTIGATION QUASHED - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE SESSIONS JUDGE - ORDER SET ASIDE - COMPLAINT TO BE TREATED AS AN F.I.R. AND REGISTERED AT THE APPROPRIATE POLICE STATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused in a case under sections 498A/34/323/120B/406 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a composite application under sections 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the proceedings and the order of the Sessions Judge directing investigation. The complaint alleged that the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioners, demanding more dowry, and was eventually driven out of the matrimonial home. The petitioners contended that the alleged incidents occurred within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad, Bihar, and that the courts in Purulia lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, erred in sending the complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Para Police Station under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without examining the complaint prima facie. The court also held that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, erred in acting on the report of the Officer-in-Charge and concluding that the courts in Purulia lacked jurisdiction. The court further held that section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not applicable in the case as the alleged offences were completed within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, erred in sending the complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Para Police Station under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without examining the complaint prima facie? 2. Whether the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, erred in acting on the report of the Officer-in-Charge and concluding that the courts in Purulia lacked jurisdiction? 3. Whether section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code was applicable in the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, erred in sending the complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Para Police Station under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without examining the complaint prima facie. The court observed that the Magistrate should have gone through the complaint to satisfy themselves that there were prima facie allegations of commission of cognizable offence before sending it to the police station. 2. The court held that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, erred in acting on the report of the Officer-in-Charge and concluding that the courts in Purulia lacked jurisdiction. The court observed that the Magistrate should have referred the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking up the responsibility of pronouncing an order that went against the direction given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The court held that section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not applicable in the case as the alleged offences were completed within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad. The court observed that section 179 applies only to offences where the act by itself does not constitute the offence but the act together with its consequence constitutes the offence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Sessions Judge directing investigation and directed the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, to send the F.I.R. including the petition of complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad for appropriate action in accordance with law.
A.B. Mukherjee, J.: In course of the composite application under section 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the petitioners, nine in number who figure as accused in Para P.S. Case No. 52 of 1993 under sections 498A/34/323/120B/406 of the Indian Penal Code pray for quashing of the said proceeding as also the order dated 16th of November 1994 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge at Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 1993.
2. The case of the petitioners in short is that petitioner No.1 is the husband who runs a business at Bokaro, District, Bihar. Petitioner No.2 being the elder brother of petitioner No.1, is an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant. The petitioner No.3 being the younger brother of petitioner No.1, is an employee of Barmo Coliary in Bihar. Petitioner No.4 being younger brother of petitioner No.1 is also a business man. Petitioner No.5 is the old widow mother-in-law aged about 75 years. Petitioner No. 6 is the married sister of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 is the husband of petitioner No.6 who being a Government employee at Jaipur, are resident of Purulia District. Petitioner No.8 is also married sister of petitioner No.1 residing at Bokaro Steel Plant. Petitioner No.9 being cousin brother of petitioner No.1 is a permanent resident of Barmo in Bihar. Petitioner No.1 was married to the O.P. No.2 and marriage was celebrated at Dhanbad on 17th of May 1993. A petition of complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia by the opposite party No.2 being Complaint Case No. 68 of 1993. It was alleged that after the marriage which was performed on 19th of June 1988 at Bhajudi within the District of Bihar at Dhanbad according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after the ceremony of Ashtamangola performed within the jurisdiction of Para P.S. in Purulia. Opposite party No.2 started to reside with petitioner No.1 besides the petitioners 2 to 5 in their house situated in Bokaro. It is alleged that during marriage some gold ornaments were given to opposite party No.2. Subsequently, she was tortured by accused Nos. 1 to 5 both physically and mentally, commanding her to bring more dowry for extending the business of her husband, when out of fear, opposite party No.2 took shelter to the house of her brothers. It is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 5 used to insist the complainant to commit suicide and the baby born out of their wed-lock was also ill-treated. Ultimately, she along with the baby were driven out of matrimonial home following severe assault. Accordingly, she made a complaint.
3. The complaint was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia to Para P.S. for treating the same as an F.I.R. and also for investigation.
4. Later the O.C., Para P.S, after making enquiry came to the finding that the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Chash P.S. in the District of Bokaro and all the accused persons also belonged to the same police station. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Purulia who by order dated 18th of September 1993 came to the finding that the alleged incident and consequences took place at a place within the District of Dhanbad in the State of Bihar and the Courts of Purulia have no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Opposite party No.2 moved a revisional application being Criminal Revision 78 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge at Purulia and the latter by his order dated 16th of November 1994 set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia with the direction to send back the F.I.R. to the Officer-in-Charge of the Para Police Station for investigation.
5. The petitioner No.1 got Anticipatory Bail from the Sessions Judge at Purulia and the rest of the petitioners got bail also from the same Court. It is alleged that since the alleged incident happened within the District of Dhanbad Purulia has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of complaint and accordingly they
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
