Anil Kanti Deb vs State of West Bengal

Joymalya Bagchi, J.—Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

Proceeding being G.R. No. 541/15 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly arising out of Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 100 of 2015 dated 03.04.2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed.

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that no part of cause of action with regard to the alleged offences occurred with the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. It has also been argued that the allegations do not implicate the petitioners in the alleged crime. The allegations are omnibus and general in nature and all the in-laws have been roped in to harass and humiliate them.

On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 de facto complainant that the allegations relate to misappropriation of streedhan articles and the accused persons were required to account for the said articles at the parental home of the victim which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. It has further been argued that there are allegations that the petitioners had conjointly subjected the opposite party housewife to mental and physical torture.

I have considered the materials on record, I find that the opposite party no. 2 was married to the petitioner no. 1 on 08.02.2015 at her parental home. It has been further alleged that at the time of marriage various streedhan articles were gifted and entrusted to the petitioners. It has also been alleged that the accused persons subjected the petitioners to physical and mental torture at her matrimonial home on further demand of dowry and even intimated her by sending a Tantrik inside the room of the opposite party No. 2. After the opposite party no. 2 delivered a female child, torture upon her was increased and she was finally driven out from matrimonial home on 26.06.2014 and was treated at Kanaipur primary health centre. When the opposite party no. 2 again tried to come back to the matrimonial home the accused persons assaulted her and drove her away on 28.07.2014. Similar incident again occurred on 28.08.2014.

It has also been alleged that on 12.02.2015 the petitioner no. 1 to 3 tried to set the fire to opposite party no. 2 when she had visited the matrimonial home.

Having considered the said allegations, I find that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 herein. With regard to the other petitioners, namely, petitioner nos. 4 to 6 herein, who ate distant relations of the husband and resides separately, the allegations are vague, non-specific and omnibus in nature.

Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also do not even specifically name the said petitioners. It has been held in Kailash Agarwal v. State reported in (2014) 6 Supreme Court 577 that proceeding under Section 4 98A I.P.C. ought not to be committed against distant relation unless there are specific overt act attributed to them. Hence, I do non find any justification to permit she continuation of the impugned proceeding.

With regard to the territorial jurisdiction, I find that the Streedhan articles were gifted at the time of marriage at the paternal home of the opposite party no. 2 within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The opposite party No. 2 is also presently residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate where the streedhan articles were required to be accounted for by the accused persons.

In view of Section 181 sub Section (4) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution for criminal misappropriation may be entertained and pursued at place where the misappropriated goods were entrusted or were required to be accounted for. Hence I do not find any illegality in the institution of the illegal proceeding within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.

Reliance has been placed in Manish Ratan & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262 is, therefore, misplaced as the ratio of the said report is factually distinguishable from the instant case.

In view of the aforesaid discussion I quash the impugned proceeding so far the petitioner nos. 4 to 6 are concerned. Proceeding against petitioner nos. 1 to 3 however, shall continue in accordance with law.

Case-diary be returned immediately.

The revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. CRAN No. 1357 of 2006 is accordingly disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon completion of require formalities.