Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. - (1.) This Writ Application was filed by the petitioner who is the husband of the Respondent No. 13, Smt. Rumi Bhattacharjee (Roy). In this case the respondent No. 13, Smt. Rumi Bhattacharjee, the wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint against the petitioner at the Amherst Street Police Station in respect of commission of offence under section 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on the basis of the said complaint filed by the respondent No. 13, the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station took cognizance and started a case against the husband of the respondent No. 13, namely, the petitioner herein and thereafter on 30th of January, 1987 the premises of the petitioner was searched and various s and things were seized by the police authorities. Thereafter it is also alleged that the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging, the commission of offence by the petitioner under section 498A/403 of the Indian Penal Code and that the said petition was moved before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 9th January, 1987 under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the learned Magistrate by an order passed therein referred the matter to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar for investigating the case.
(2.) In this case the wife of the petitioner filed the criminal case against her husband namely the writ petitioner alleging that the respondent No. 13 was married with the petitioner on 2nd December, 1984 and after the marriage the wife started residing with the petitioner along with other members of the petitioners family at 130/1B, Brahmo Samaj Road at Behala. It was also alleged that the petitioner and other members of the petitioners family started misbehaviouring with the wife, the respondent No. 13 herein and started pressurising the wife for bringing various luxurious commodities like V. C. R., Coloured T. V. etc. etc. In the writ petition the petitioner annexed a copy of the complaint filed by one Smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee, the sister of the petitioner, by which the said Smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station on 31st January, 1987. In the said complaint it was alleged that while leaving the place of the petitioner on 30th of January, 1987, the wife of the petitioner, namely, the respondent No. 13 herein had also taken some of her ornaments which it was alleged to have been made by Smt. Shukla Bhattacharjee for her marriage with her own money and with the money of her family. In the said complaint there is also allegation of taking away some of the valuable sarees by the respondent No. 13 while leaving her husbands place. It also appears that on 28th of March, 1987, the respondent No. 13, the wife of the petitioner, had also lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station with a copy thereof to the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station, alleging the cruelty alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the members of the petitioners family on her. It also appears that on 3.12.86, the wife of the petitioner was also lodged another diary with the Amherst Street Police Station stating that on that date when the wife of the petitioner went to meet with the petitioner as per previous arrangement at the crossing of Bechu K Chatterjee Street and Bidhan Sarani, the petitioner also threatened her with dire consequences unless she surrenders to the parents of the petitioner at Behala ignoring all their physical and mental torture upon g her. The Writ petitioner, namely the husband of the respondent No. 13, filed this Writ Application alleging that:- (a) that the complaint filed by the wife, respondent No. 13 did not disclose any offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Inasmuch as the necessary ingredients constituting an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code had not been disclosed in the complaint and as such the learned Magistrate had no Jurisdiction to direct the police authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department to investigate the matter. (b) That the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable only if information relating to the Commission of offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence and that in the instant case the respondent No. 13, namely, the wife of the petitioner, did not lodge any complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Behala Police Station within his jurisdiction and as such the offence alleged under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code Act was not and could not be considered as a cognizable offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as a result thereof, the learned Magistrate had also no jurisdiction to direct the police authority to make any investigation in respect of the non-cognizable offence. (c) That the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 13 against the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station and the petition of complaint filed before the learned Magistrate was illegal inasmuch as the offence alleged to have been committed within Behala Police Station is within the jurisdiction of District North 24 Parganas and as such neither the Officer-in-Charge of Amherst Street Police Station nor the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had any jurisdiction to deal with it or pass any order in the matter. (d) That the word "any Magistrate" as mentioned in section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure means only the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed, and that in the instant case, according to the petitioner, the offence was alleged to have been committed in Behala Police Station which was outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and as such the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was void and is liable to be quashed by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari. (e) That the attending and/or surrounding facts and circumstances of the case clearly established that it was highly improbable and/or impossible on the part of the petitioner to commit such offence as alleged by the respondent No. 13, the wife of the petitioner in the petition of complaint which also it is alleged to have been lodged at the instance of the father of the respondent No. 13 namely, the father-in-law of the petitioner who is a police officer with a designed motive and as such, such malafide investigation should be quashed by this court.
(3.) It was contended by Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petition of complaint filed by the respondent No. 13 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, did not disclose any offence whatsoever of cognizable nature. In paragraph 10 of the petition of complaint, it was stated that- "during her stay in the matrimonial house, your petitioner was not provided with sufficient food while she was carrying during the months of March & April, 85, she was forced to do all the household works from morning to night and owing to such hard labour she became seriously ill on 1st May, 1985 and was transferred to her fathers place by the accused and his sister. On 2nd May, the petitioner was admitted in the Marwari Relief Society Hospital, Amherst Street and was bleeded profusely and that resulted in mis-carriage. While your petitioner stayed with her mother for near about three months at the above-noted address, the accused on several occasions visited your petitioner and abused and humiliated your petitioner in front of her parent even and she was very much mentally depressed for such inhuman behaviour." In paragraph 11 of the said complaint, it was stated that on 6.8.85 the wife of the petitioner went to her matrimonial house but found no change in the petitioner and it was alleged that the petitioner behaved with her very rudely and went up to the extent of manhandling and she was subjected to inhuman and physical torture and the situation become so much so graved that at that time the wife thought of committing suicide to end her life. In paragraph 13 of the said complaint, It was alleged that when she had to leave the matrimonial house and staying with her father on 28. 3. 86, the petitioner all on a sudden came to his father-in-laws house and abused her in most filthy language. In paragraph 15 of the said petition, it was alleged that the facts and circumstances revealed that the petitioner perpetrated inhuman mental and physical torture upon the wife and also mis-appropriated all her. ornaments and belongings and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 498A & 403 of the Indian Penal Code and that it was also stated that the said learned Magistrate had jurisdiction in this matter, as torture was also caused on her within the jurisdiction of the said Court. In the said petition of complaint, it was also alleged that the petitioner had removed her ornaments elsewhere from the locker with dishonest intention and has mis-appropriated the same.;