Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to confer jurisdiction on a court to try an offence of criminal breach of trust where the property was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person within the court's jurisdiction.

Indrajit Chatterjee, J.

1. This revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners, who are respectively the parents-in-law (P-1 and P2), brother-in-law (P-3) and sisters-in-law (P-4 and P-5) who have prayed for quashing of the proceeding, being Liluah Police Station Case No. 627 of 2013 dated September 25, 2013 under Sections 498A/323/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (leave is granted to amend the cause title accordingly) which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the proceeding since, 2014, the charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, being charge sheet No. 182/2014 dated May 31, 2014 in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 498A/323/406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is the submission of Mr. Majumder by taking me to the long F.I.R. that there is no allegation particularly against the brother in law and the sisters in law and that the entire offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Siliguri, District – Darjeeling and as such Howrah Court has no jurisdiction over the matter, therefore, the matter is to be transferred to the Court at Siliguri having jurisdiction.

3. He further submitted by taking me to the F.I.R. that even if the entire F.I.R. is believed then no offence under Section 498A can be said to have been committed either by the brother in law or by the sisters in law. He further submitted that the demand of dowry was made at Siliguri and not at Howrah and on that score also this Howrah Court has no jurisdiction over the matter. He submitted that in the charge sheet Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been clamped and as such claim of the de facto complainant that her father was forced to give dowry was not believed by the investigating agency. He took me to explanation (a) attached to Section 498A to say that the conduct of the accused person even if believed to be true, it cannot attract that definition of cruelty as made out in that explanation (a). He further prayed that this Court may look into the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the charge under Section 498A etc. of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On behalf of opposite party No. 2 Mr. Anand Keshri, learned Advocate submitted by taking me to entire complaint to say that there is enough allegations on all the accused persons and in the proceeding under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code this Court cannot assess evidence or conduct a mini trial to dispose of the litigation. He further submitted that evidence is to be adduced by the parties before the Trial Court to substantiate as to whether the claim of the de facto complainant as made out in the F.I.R. are true or false and as such the prosecution must get the chance to adduce evidence. He further submitted that if this Court keep it’s searching eyes on the F.I.R. then this Court may come to a conclusion that there is prima facie case to go for trial and points agitated before this court may even be urged by the accused persons at the time of framing of charge.

5. As regard the jurisdiction point Mr. Keshri submitted that this case also falls under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He took me to Section 181(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code to convince this Court that the legislature in its wisdom legislated that in dealing with an offence of criminal mis-representation or criminal breach of trust the Court of Howrah (as the case before this court) may enquire into or try this case as because in the F.I.R. there is specific allegation that these accused persons have committed breach of trust in respect of 'stridhan property’ of the de facto complainant and also in respect of her educational certificates. Mr. Keshri laid stress on the words “was required to be returned or accounted for” as used in sub-Section 4 of