JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This revisional application has been directed for quashing of the proceeding being Bidhannagar Women Police Station case no. 50/2018 dated 22nd November, 2018 under Section 407/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned additional Judicial Magistrate at Bidhannagar Women Police Station, North 24 Parganas.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh submits that the allegation leveled against the present petitioner is that opposite party no. 2 who is a divorcee lady, joined as a Front Desk Manager at a hotel at Gangtok. As no separate room was available, she had to share a room with another employee at the hotel namely, Tanmoy Som, the present petitioner. It is the allegation of defacto-complainant/opposite party no. 2 that the present petitioner assured her that there will be no issue in sharing the same room but despite the same, on the first night, the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon the defacto- complainant. The petitioner also assured to marry her but subsequently some disputes and differences arose between the defacto-complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner and for which opposite party no. 2 lodged first information report at the Bidhannagar Police Station and on the basis of first information report, the investigation started. The present revisional application has been preferred for quashing the above mentioned proceeding mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the materials available so far during investigation does not constitute any offence at all and secondly on the ground of want of jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that according to the allegation leveled in the first information report itself, the alleged incident took place at Gangtok in sikkim and the complainant herself disclosed that all subsequent events happened or took place at Siliguri, under the district of Darjeeling. Moreover, her permanent residence is also at Siliguri. It is not clear why she has lodged the complaint at Bidhannagar Police Station, Calcutta which is far away from Gangtok and Siliguri and which place has got no territorial jurisdiction at all for investigation or trial and police should not have accepted the written complaint because first information report makes it clear that nothing happened within the jurisdiction of Bidhannagar Police Station. Accordingly, continuation of the instant proceeding/investigation by an authority who has got no jurisdiction to proceed, is required to be quashed by the court.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the materials in the case diary constitutes offence against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress and at this stage, the question of quashing the proceeding does not arise.

5. I have perused the materials in the case diary. It appears from the entry make in the diary dated 9.6.2022 that the case is still pending for investigation. Materials collected during investigation including statements recorded under Section 164/161 of the Code prima facie discloses offence as alleged against petitioner. Furthermore investigation is still continuing. It is too early to say that the continuation of the instant investigation against the present petitioner will be an abuse of process of the court and as such the petitioner's prayer for quashing the proceeding on the ground that materials collected so far does not disclose any cognizable offence against petitioner, cannot be allowed.

6. As regards the second limb of argument, Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner submits that according to defacto-complainant, the incident took place in Sikkim, Gangtok and some incidents may have taken place in Siliguri and as such the said proceeding should be quashed on the ground that it is continuing before a wrong forum, alternatively proceeding should be transferred before the appropriate authority who has got the jurisdiction to make investigation of this case.

7