R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the criminal proceeding of G.R. No. 3604 of 2013 arising out of English Bazar Police Station Case No. 1032 of 2013 pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda by filing this revision being registered as CRR No. 1583 of 2014. The said criminal proceeding of G.R. No. 3604 of 2013 has also been challenged by the petitioner by filing revision being registered as CRR No. 908 of 2015. Both the revisional applications are taken up together for hearing as the petitioners in both the revisions have prayed for quashing of G.R. No. 3604 of 2013.
(2.) The backdrop of two revisional applications is as follows: The opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda which was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of English Bazar Police Station for registration of FIR and causing investigation. Accordingly, English Bazar Police Station Case No. 1032 dated December 1, 2013 under Sections 498A/323/325/328/307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act came into existence. The police investigated the said criminal case and submitted charge-sheet against all the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/323/328/307/109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner - Pritam Sarkhel happens to be the husband of the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner -Badal Sarkhel and the petitioner - Archana Sarkhel happen to be the parents-in-law of the opposite party No. 2. Similarly, the petitioner -Shyamal Kumar Sarkhel happens to be the uncle-in-law of the opposite party No. 2. All the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding.
(3.) Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that part of the offence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Jalpaiguri and part of the offence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Bengaluru, but the defacto complainant started the criminal proceeding against the petitioners before English Bazar Police Station at Malda and learned Magistrate at Malda has no territorial jurisdiction to try the instant criminal case. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the defacto complainant filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for amendment of the written complaint treated as FIR on the ground that the last incident of physical assault on the defacto complainant by the petitioner/husband took place at Malda on May 8, 2013 in stead of April 8, 2013 as reflected in FIR. By referring to the copy of the order dated August 19, 2013 passed in matrimonial proceeding being M.C. No. 3445 of 2013, Mr. Mukherjee submits that the competent civil court passed the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner/husband and the opposite party No. 2 by decree of divorce. He argues that the opposite party No. 2 has started the criminal proceeding against the husband and in-laws after receiving summons of the said matrimonial proceeding from the competent civil court. According to Mr. Mukherjee, criminal proceeding against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.;