R.K.BAG, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No.1274/2008 arising out of Purulia P.S. Case No.157/2008 dated 24th December, 2008 u/s.498A of the IPC pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.
(2.) IT appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no.2 was married to the petitioner on 5th July, 1999 according to Hindu rites and religion. One child was born from this wedlock. The opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and his relatives continuously for considerable period of time. The opposite party no.2 gave information in writing to the Officer -in -Charge of Purulia Police Station on 24th December, 2008 and the instant criminal case was started on the basis of the said written complaint submitted by the opposite party no.2. The police investigated the case and ultimately submitted charge sheet against all the accused persons including the petitioner on 29th March, 2009 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had to start a criminal proceeding against the opposite party no.2 for issuance of search warrant under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22nd December, 2008 and the instant criminal proceeding was initiated by the opposite party no.2 as counter -blast of the criminal proceeding initiated by the petitioner. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the allegation of torture inflicted on the opposite party no.2 by the petitioner is totally false and the story made out by the opposite party no.2 for initiating the proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the members of the family is also inherently improbable. Learned counsel also submits that the FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 out of malice and that the investigation taken up by the police officers of Purulia Police Station is also beyond the jurisdiction, because only part of the cause of action of the criminal proceeding took place in Purulia as reflected from the charge sheet. Learned counsel further submits that the incidents giving rise to the cause of action for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of Purulia Police Station and as such, the initiation of the proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code at Purulia is not justified under the law.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel, representing the State has pointed out from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that sufficient incriminating materials were collected by the investigating agency to prosecute the petitioner and the members of his family for commission of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.;