Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The present revisional application is directed for quashing the proceeding in connection with English Bazar P.S. case No. 566 of 2009 dated 28.08.2009 under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2764 of 2009 now pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda.
(2.) The present three petitioners are parents-in-law and husband of the defacto complainant Smt. Arpita Ghosh (Nandy) who has lodged complaint against them for inflicting physical and mental torture upon her for extortion of dowry after her marriage on 04.03.2009 with the respondent no. 3, Samrat Nandy. On receipt of her complaint on 28.08.2009 the local PS started the above case in which charge sheet has been submitted under Section 498A/34 IPC against all the three accused persons. On receipt of the said charge sheet the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance on 29.12.2009 and issued warrant of arrest against all the three petitioners fixing 18.12.2010 for execution and return. The said proceedings has now been challenged on grounds of jurisdictional error and lack of prima facie case against the present petitioners.
(3.) Learned lawyer for the petitioner has contended that from the petition of complaint it will appear that all the petitioners are permanent residents of 6, Baikuntha Ganguly Road, Sodepur, under P.S. Khardah, District ' North 24 Parganas and in the FIR the allegation of torture upon the defacto complainant was made at her matrimonial house, i.e., at premises no. 6, Baikuntha Ganguly Road but the complaint was lodged before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda who had no jurisdiction to enquire or try the case which is contrary to the provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. Moreover, no prima facie case of alleged torture for extortion of dowry was made out in the petition of complaint though the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda took cognisance of the offence which is equally abuse of the process of law which should be prevented. He has relied upon the principles laid down in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma 'Vs.- Monica [(2010) 2 C Cr LR (SC) 75] in support of his contention. In the said case (paragraph 62) the ratio of Devendra & Ors. 'Vs.- State of U.P. & Anr. (2009) 7 SCALE 613, was relied upon. The principles enunciated in paragraph 26 of the said case is quoted below: '26. However, it is now well-settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations made in the First Information Report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior Courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal Court for nothing.';