By this application u/s 482 CrPC, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 02-07-2018 passed in C.R. Case No. 85 of 2018, whereby, learned magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner, as well as for quashing the proceeding in the said CR Case No. 85 of 2018.

2. Learned counsel, Mr. A. Tiwari for the petitioner and Ms. Beauty Talukdar for the respondent No. 2 were heard.

3. The respondent No. 2, as complaint, lodged a complaint against the present petitioner, which was registered as CR Case No. 85 of 2018. On the basis of said complaint and upon enquiry made under Section 200 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s 406 IPC against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tiwari submitted that no part of the cause of action for the offence arose within the jurisdiction of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, and as such, learned Judicial Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Further contention of Mr. Tiwari was that the petitioner/respondent was the resident outside the jurisdiction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, and as such, the order taking cognizance and issuing process stood vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint did not make out any offence u/s 406 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, Ms. Beauty Talukdar, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Bala Kishan Dhandania and Ors.-VS- Nidhi Dhandhania reported in 2016 (2) GLT 100, contended, that as the Stridhana were to be returned at the paternal home of the respondent no. 2 at Jorhat, the court at Jorhat certainly had the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. As regards the contention of the learned counsel regarding non-compliance with the provision of Section 202 (1) CrPC, counsel for the respondent contended that even in the event of holding the provision of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. to be mandatory, entire proceeding cannot be quashed and the matter may be remitted back to the trial magistrate for compliance with the provision of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

6. From the rival submission made by the parties, the following points fell for consideration in this criminal petition :

(i) Whether the allegations made in the complaint makes out an offence u/s 406 IPC ?

(ii) Whether non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 (1) vitiates the criminal proceedings, rendering the same liable to be quashed ?

(iii) Whether the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat has the territorial jurisdiction to try the case ?

Point No. 1.

7. It is the settled principle as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, that when a criminal proceeding is sought to be quashed at the initial stage, the test to be applied, is whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint or FIR makes out any offence ? If the answer is yes, there is no scope for quashing the proceeding. As a corollary to the same, when the allegations made in the complaint in their face value fails to make out any offence, the court should not hesitate to quash a criminal proceeding, if it is considered necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. It is therefore, necessary to have a look at the complaint sought to be quashed.

8. The respondent No. 2 is the wife of the present petitioner. It has been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were married on 23-02-2014 and the marriage was solemnised at Jorhat. After marriage, the respondent No. 2 started living with the petitioner as husband and wife at Dimapur and spent three months of conjugal life smoothly. Thereafter, the petitioner started to torture the respondent No. 2 physically and mentally and as such, the respondent No. 2 was compelled to file a criminal case against the petitioner u/s 498-A IPC and eventually the respon