JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY,

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in connection with Complaint Case No. 681/2019.

3. By the impugned order dated 31.07.2019, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate for an offence under Section 406 of IPC and search warrant has also been issued to recover the stridhan alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner’s herein.

4. The only ground of challenge is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to enquire and try the offence under Section 406 of IPC alleged to have been committed by the petitioners herein inasmuch as according to Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, from the averment made in the complaint, it is clear that neither any offence under Section 406 of IPC was committed within the local jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate nor any part of the stridhan which is subject of the offence was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the petitioners herein at Guwahati and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 181 (4) of the Cr.P.C. the learned Judicial Magistrate shall have no jurisdiction to enquire or try the offences. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. In support of such contention, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, relies on the decision of this Court in the case Kuljit Singh Sethi vs. State of Assam and Others, 2019 Cri. L.J. 1666 and the decision rendered in the case of Bijay Kumar Jalan vs. State of Assam and Others, 2017 (5) GLT 811.

6. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel contending further that in absence of averment made in the petition/complaint regarding any stipulation that the stridhan were required to be returned or accounted for at Guwahati, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of IPC, inasmuch as admittedly the marriage was solemnized in the State of Maharastra and stridhans were delivered at Maharastra and in Kolkatta. In support of such contention, Mr. Bora, relies upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harjit and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, 1986 Cri. L.J. 2070.

7. Per contra Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that Section 406 of IPC, is a continuing offence and every day of non-return of stridhan articles, would give a continuous cause of action and as the respondent is a residence at Guwahati, the Magistrate at Guwahati shall have jurisdiction to enquiry into the complaint.

8. It is further contended by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel that Section 178 of Cr.P.C. creates an exception to the ordinary rule under Section 177 of Cr.P.C. by permitting the Courts in another local area where the offence is continued in another local area to try the offence. According to Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel Section 181 (4) of Cr.P.C. is to be harmoniously read with Section 178 of Cr.P.C. more particularly in a case of misappropriation of stridhan. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rupali Devi vs. Sate of U.P. and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 384, while dealing with the provision of Section 498A of IPC and Section 178 of Cr.P.C. held that when the offence/ crime is against a woman and includes cruelty, such victim can file a complaint/FIR in a place where she has taken shelter. According to Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel, misappropriation of stridhan itself is a cruelty and therefore in respect of victim women whose stridhans are misappropriated, the principles as laid down in the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of U.P. (supra) shall be made applicable. Acco