- (1.) THE petitioners have preferred this criminal revision for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1506 of 2009 arising out of Siliguri Police Station Case No. 487 of 2009 dated 13th October, 2009 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Siliguri.
(2.) IT appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no.2 gave written information before the Inspector -in -Charge of Siliguri Police Station on 13th October, 2009, which was treated as Siliguri Police Station Case No. 487 of 2009 dated 13th October, 2009. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners on 30th March, 2010 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have challenged the said criminal proceeding on the ground that learned Magistrate at Siliguri does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the said case.
(3.) MR . Pushpal Satpathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts constituting the offence reflected in the written complaint treated as FIR occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Barrackpore and as such, learned Magistrate at Siliguri cannot try the case due to specific bar under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Satpathi has relied on the case of "Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors V. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.", 2004 8 SCC 100 and in the case of "Bhura Ram and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Anr.", 2008 11 SCC 103 and in the case of "Sri Binod Kumar Sil and Ors. V. The State of West Bengal and Anr.",2010 1 CCrLR 595 to impress upon this Court that the proceeding may be quashed because learned Magistrate at Siliguri does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case. On perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors V. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.", 2004 8 SCC 100, I find that the cause of action for starting the criminal proceeding under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, took place at Nagercoil and the complaint was filed at Chennai and the Apex Court on consideration of the factual scenario disclosed in the petition of complaint, came to the conclusion that no part of cause of action for starting the criminal proceeding arose in Chennai and as such, learned Magistrate at Chennai had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Similarly, on perusal of the decision of the Apex Court "Bhura Ram and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Anr.", 2008 11 SCC 103, it appears that on the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the petition of complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action for starting the criminal proceeding under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code arose in Rajasthan and therefore, learned Magistrate at Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the case of "Sri Binod Kumar Sil and Ors. V. The State of West Bengal and Anr.",2010 1 CCrLR 595 the offences under Sections 498A and 406 and some other provisions of the Indian Penal Code were not committed wholly or partly within Durgapur, though the marriage between the husband and the wife was solemnised at Durgapur and that those offences took place at Halisahar. In view of the provisions of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stipulating that every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, the criminal case instituted in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur was transferred by this Court to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore for the interest of justice.;