JUDGMENT :

By means of filing this criminal revision petition under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C hereunder). Petitioner Nimai Roy has challenged the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2) in Criminal Revision 02 of 2019 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.7), Agartala in CR No. 299 of 2017.

[2] By his order dated 26.11.2018, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint lodged by Smt. Banani Sarkar (respondent No.2 herein) against the present petitioner and discharged him from the case on the ground that court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case since the place of occurrence was beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Said order was challenged by Smt. Banani Sarkar (respondent No.2) in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.2) at Agartala. By the impugned judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge held that findings of the trail court were incorrect because part of the occurrence took place within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Therefore, by setting aside the order of the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial court to restore the case to its file and proceed with the matter from the stage at which it was dismissed.

[3] Aggrieved thereby, the accused petitioner has approached this court for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Session Judge.

[4] Essential facts relevant for disposal are as under:

Smt. Banani Sarkar (respondent No.2) lodged a written complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Agartala against present petitioner Nimai Roy. Her complaint was registered as case No. CR 299 of 2017 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate which was later transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.7), Agartala. Having taken cognizance of offence punishable under section 342 IPC, the learned Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C and thereafter summoned the accused (present petitioner) to appear before the court for his examination under section 251 Cr.P.C. At that stage of the case, accused petitioner challenged the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court which was decided in favour of accused petitioner. Case against him was dismissed on jurisdictional ground and he was discharged from the case.

[5] At this juncture, it would be appropriate to give a summary of the complaint for a better understanding of the case.

[6] In her complaint lodged against the petitioner complainant stated that her husband Manik Roy was murdered in the year 2006 when her daughter was only 4 years’ old. On account of murder of her husband a case was registered under section 302 IPC and investigation was taken up by police into the said incident and after investigation, police submitted charge sheet which culminated into trial as ST (GTA) 54 of 2015. Complainant was made an accused in the said murder case and she was arrested by police during investigation. At that time she used to live at Agartala in Officers quarters lane behind Sishu Bihar School. Her accused brother in law Nimai Roy (present petitioner) and her father in law came to her house at Agartala and took away her daughter along with her property documents and wrongfully confined her daughter in their house at Golaghati in Sepahijala District. After she was enlarged on bail, she requested her accused brother in law (petitioner) to return her daughter. Since he did not return her minor daughter to her, she lodged the said complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Agartala against her said brother in law for having committed offence punishable under section 342 IPC. By filing a separate petition she wanted search