Jurisdiction for a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC can be where the wife takes shelter after leaving the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty, as established in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. Both the revision applications assailing the same FIR registered as Burdwan Women Police Station Case No. 219 dated 27.07.2016 are taken up for decision by this common judgment.

2. These revision applications have referred to the proceeding in connection with Burdwan Women Police Station Case No. 219 dated 27.07.2016 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 2644 of 2016 under Section 498A/323/327/504/507/354B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) read with Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for DP Act), with a prayer for quashing of the same.

Background:-

3. One application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CRPC) was filed before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan, alleging inter alia that the opposite party no. 2 herein got married to the petitioner namely Amitava Chatterjee and immediately after marriage, started residing in her matrimonial home at Vishakhapatnam. But, soon after, the opposite party no. 2 herein was subjected to cruelty at the instance of all the petitioners on various occasions on demand of more dowry including cash. Ultimately, she could not bear with the torture caused upon her and left her matrimonial home and took shelter in her father’s house on 03.03.2016.

4. On receipt of the complaint from the Court of Ld. CJM, Burdwan specific case under Sections 498A /32/307/504/506/354B of IPC read with Section 3 /4 of the DP Act was started by Burdwan Women Police Station dated 27.07.2016. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A/32/307/504/506/354B of IPC read with Section 3 /4 of the DP Act and case was registered as Burdwan Women Police Station case no. 219/16 dated 27.07.2016.

5. In CRR 286 of 2018 petitioners are all relatives of the petitioner (husband) of CRR 1548 of 2018.

6. The petitioner of CRR 1548 of 2018 challenged the proceeding in connection with Burdwan Women Police Station Case no. 219 of 2016 under Sections 498A/307/323/ 504/506/ 354B of the IPC read with read with Section 3 /4 of the DP Act currently pending before the Ld. CJM, Burdwan on the ground of non-disclosure of any specific offence against the petitioner and also to wreak vengeance.

7. The petitioners of CRR 286 of 2018 also assailed the same complaint registered as Burdwan Women Police Station Case no. 219 of 2016 on the issue that the entire incident/cause of action arose at Vishakhapatnam, so the aid of Sections 177/179/181(4) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for the exercise of jurisdiction by Ld. CJM, Burdwan for the purpose of investigation and trial.

Argument advanced:-

8. Both the Ld. Counsels, namely Mr. Amajit De and Ashis Kumar Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the revisional applications have advanced an argument on two scores:-

To begin with, the instant case is not maintainable on the ground of wrong jurisdiction in terms of Section 177/179/181 (4) of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that entire incident alleged to have been committed, arose at Vishakhapatnam within the jurisdiction of Manorama A.C Police Station whereas, this case was registered at Burdwan Women Police station.

In addition to that it is submitted that the written complaint lacks any specific allegation against any of the petitioners and thereby a try was made to impress this Court that no credible offence has been disclosed in the written complaint.

9. In support of their contention, the Ld. Counsels have relied on a couple of cases namely Mirza Iqbal alias Golu and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 & Geeta Mehrotra and another State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741.

10. In opposition to that, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2/defacto complainant in connection with both the revision applications has submitted that the written complaint discloses specific role played by all the petitioners in connection