The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the initial stage and highlighted the need for mediation in family disputes.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The revisional application has been filed by petitioner/husband praying for quashing of Titagarh Police Station Case no. 154/2021 under Section 498A/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore filed by the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is a permanent resident of Hongkong since 2013 and is staying outside India since 2006 for the work. The petitioner along with the opposite party no. 2 never resided within the jurisdiction of Barrackpore except on 29th November, 2002 when their marriage was solemnized. No torture was inflicted upon the opposite party no. 2/wife. The ingredients required to constitute the offence as alleged are not present in this case and as such the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted in the case under reference. The opposite party has not filed any medical document in support of her complaint. It is the further case of the petitioner that the jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides 'every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.' It is submitted that 'the particular incident did not happen at the petitioner's father-in-law's house which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Titagarh Police Station'.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that no part of the alleged cause of action or the alleged offence arose within the jurisdiction of Titagarh Police Station and as such the FIR herein is liable to be quashed.

4. The opposite party/wife is also a permanent resident of Hongkong since 2013 but has fraudulently claimed to be a resident of Titagarh.

5. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is bad in law on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and has been filed with ulterior motive in spite of the fact that the petitioner/husband pays 72% of his income towards maintenance to his wife (opposite party) and daughter.

6. The allegations of torture and other offence in the FIR is totally false and baselelss. Thus the FIR is liable to be quashed. The following rulings have been relied upon on behalf of the petitioner/husband.

(a) Suresh vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr., [(2005) 3 SCC 670], where in the Supreme Court held:-

'Held, the said complaint was not at all maintainable at this distance of time - It was liable to be dismissed on the question of inordinate laches on the part of the complainant himself.'

(b) Kishan Singh (D) through L.R.S. Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors., (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3624), where in the Court held:-

'However, since delay in filing F.I.R. was not explained, criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law.'

(c) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., [(1988) 1 SCC 692], where in the Court held:-

'On facts and in view of strained relationship between settler of the trust and the co-trustee and his wife, held, High Court justified in quashing the proceedings as ingredients of criminal offence wanting.'

(d) Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & anr., (2010 AIR SCW 4975), where in the Court held:-

'Appellants residing at different place - Neither visited place of incident - Nor lived with complainant and her husband - Their implication in complaint is meant to harass and humiliate husband's relatives - Permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse or process of law - Complaint, held, liable to be quashed.'

(e) State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992 CRI.L.J. 527), where in the Court held:-

'108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted