Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ajit Borthakur, J.
Rajib Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
Leena Mazumdar - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 605 of 2018
Decided On : 24-02-2020
Criminal Misappropriation - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials, emphasizing that the offense of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offense was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offense was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person. The court also referred to the judgments in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Bijay Kumar Jalan v. State of Assam, highlighting the determining factor for jurisdiction and the need to decide territorial jurisdiction based on the complaint and material annexed therewith. The court concluded that the Guwahati court did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the offense of criminal breach of trust, which was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Jorhat Court, in accordance with Section 181(4) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of a complaint case filed by the respondent No. 1, alleging criminal breach of trust under Section 406/34 of the IPC. The petitioners argued that the alleged offense took place in Jorhat, and the Guwahati court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The respondent No. 1 had taken away her belongings, including 'stridhan' properties, from the petitioners' house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Guwahati court did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the offense of criminal breach of trust, as the dowry articles were delivered and allegedly retained at Jorhat. Therefore, the court set aside and quashed the order taking cognizance of the offense and issuing summons, with a direction to return the complaint to the respondent No. 1 for presentation to the competent court at Jorhat.
Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406/34 of the IPC, considering the location of the alleged offense and the delivery of dowry articles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the jurisdiction for inquiry or trial for the offense vests in the court in whose jurisdiction it is committed. The court also referred to relevant judgments to determine the determining factor for jurisdiction and the need to decide territorial jurisdiction based on the complaint and material annexed therewith.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order taking cognizance of the offense under Section 406/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and issuing summons was set aside and quashed, with a direction to return the complaint to the respondent No. 1 for presentation to the competent court at Jorhat.
JUDGMENT
Ajit Borthakur, J. - Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State/respondent No.2.
2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quashing and setting aside of complaint case being C.R. Case No. 5154C /2017, filed by the respondent No. 1, pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati including the order, dated 18.01.2018, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioners.
3. The petitioners have contended that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent No. 1/complainant. On 30.01.2015, the petitioner No. 1 married the respondent No. 1 performing Hindu rites and rituals and started their conjugal life at Jorhat, Rajabari Mission Compound. It has been stated that on 15.10.2017, the respondent No. 1 along with some family members came to the house of the petitioners and took away all her belongings including her ''stridhan'' properties. In that regard, the petitioner No. 2 had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat P.S. and thereupon Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2253/2017, under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner No. 1 and two others under Sections 448/427/506/34 of the IPC. After the aforesaid incident, the respondent No. 1 has been residing at her parental home in Guwahati. On 08.02.2018, the petitioners received summons from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), (''CJM'' for short) directing them to appear on 09.03.2018, in connection with complaint case No. 5154c/2017, filed by the respondent No. 1 praying for issuance of search warrant in the address of the petitioners for recovery of ''stridhan'' of the respondent No. 1. The said case is now pending in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati for appearance and by order, dated 15.12.2017, the learned Court issued search warrant to be executed by the officer-in-charge of Jorhat P.S. to search in the house of the petitioners, situated at Rajabari Mission Compound, Chinamara and to seize the articles mentioned in the complaint petition, if found and further, to hand over the said articles to the respondent No. 1 on execution of a bond of Rs.4,00,000/- and submit report to that effect. Accordingly, the police seized two articles from the house of the petitioners viz. one three door wooden almirah and one mattress respectively and handed over the same to the respondent No. 1. In this regard, the executing Police Officer of Jorhat P.S. submitted a detailed compliance report of the said order, dated 15.12.2017, enclosing therewith seizure list and Zimmanama. The petitioners have further contended that on 18.01.2018, the learned trial Court, after perusing the aforesaid police report, took cognizance of the offence under Section 406/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and accordingly, issued summons to them.
4. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent No. 1 has filed the complaint case with a malicious intention as she had already taken away her ''stridhan'' from the custody of the petitioners on 15.10.2017 and the Court at Guwahati has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as well as to try the complaint case, when the alleged occurrence took place at Jorhat within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the learned CJM, Jorhat. Mr. Mahanta further submitted that in view of the FIR and the charge-sheet being submitted by the police against the respondent No. 1, it is crystal clear that the respondent No. 1 has filed the impugned complaint case by taking resort to false
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
