INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) This revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners, who are respectively the parents -in -law (P -1 and P2), brother -in -law (P -3) and sisters -in -law (P -4 and P -5) who have prayed for quashing of the proceeding, being Liluah Police Station Case No. 627 of 2013 dated September 25, 2013 under Sections 498A/323/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (leave is granted to amend the cause title accordingly) which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the proceeding since, 2014, the charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, being charge sheet No. 182/2014 dated May 31, 2014 in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 498A/323/406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) It is the submission of Mr. Majumder by taking me to the long F.I.R. that there is no allegation particularly against the brother in law and the sisters in law and that the entire offence was committed within the jurisdiction of Siliguri, District - Darjeeling and as such Howrah Court has no jurisdiction over the matter, therefore, the matter is to be transferred to the Court at Siliguri having jurisdiction.
(3.) He further submitted by taking me to the F.I.R. that even if the entire F.I.R. is believed then no offence under Section 498A can be said to have been committed either by the brother in law or by the sisters in law. He further submitted that the demand of dowry was made at Siliguri and not at Howrah and on that score also this Howrah Court has no jurisdiction over the matter. He submitted that in the charge sheet Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been clamped and as such claim of the de facto complainant that her father was forced to give dowry was not believed by the investigating agency. He took me to explanation (a) attached to Section 498A to say that the conduct of the accused person even if believed to be true, it cannot attract that definition of cruelty as made out in that explanation (a). He further prayed that this Court may look into the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the charge under Section 498A etc. of the Indian Penal Code.;