Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. By filing this Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of an Order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Calcutta in the Complaint Case No. CNS No. 1058 of 2021.

2. By the said impugned order dated 03.11.2021, the Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 193/199/209 of the IPC in a proceeding filed under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC.

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of this Criminal Revisional application, are as under: -

3a. The petitioner is a legally married wife of the opposite party no. 1. She had filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being Misc. Case No. 17/2017. The said proceeding was dismissed for default by the Learned 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner/wife had been residing in joint mess. After dismissal of the said case, the petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial house.

3b. Due to change in the circumstances, the petitioner/wife has filed a fresh application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying reliefs as prayed for. The proceeding is pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court at Calcutta.

3c. In the said proceeding, the husband has filed an objection raising point of maintainability, which has been decided by the Learned Magistrate vide Order dated 23.02.2021. The Learned Magistrate holds the proceeding is maintainable and further allowed interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 39,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the petitioner awaiting the disposal of the case by the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.03.2021.

3d. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 23.03.2021, the opposite party no. 1 had filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2021 before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta, which was, however, allowed on 07.12.2021 whereby setting aside the impugned Order dated 23.03.2021 passed by the Learned Magistrate.

3e. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 07.12.2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2021, the petitioner has moved a Revisional application being CRR No. 314 of 2022. After hearing, the then Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court has been pleased to stay the impugned Order dated 23.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2021 on 02.02.2022.

3f. During pendency of the Revisional application, the opposite party no. 1/husband filed an application under Section 340 of the CrPC alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner/wife had made false statements in the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the Learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with the Misc. Case No. 9 of 2019. The said application had been filed before the Learned 6^th Metropolitan Magistrate. However, it was appeared and moved the same as complaint case before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Calcutta on 03.11.2021.

3g. The Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Calcutta took cognizance on the said complaint vide order dated 03.11.2021 and the case was further transferred to the file of the Learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Though, the application was originally filed before the Learned 6^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta since the original Misc. Case No. 9 of 2019 was pending before the said 6th Metropolitan Magistrate but without going through the relevant provisions of Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC, Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Calcutta took cognizance mechanically and ignored its jurisdiction. Hence, this Criminal Revisional application.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf o