Asish Mandal VsThe State of Tripura

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the charge framed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala under Section 498(A) IPC mainly on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to hold trial in the matter.

The undisputed facts are that Smti. Pinki Mandal (deceased) was married to Debasish Mandal. The present petitioners Smt. Purnima Mandal and Asish Mandal are the mother and brother of Debasish Mandal. The prosecution story is that the marriage between Debasish and Pinki took place on 18th January, 2009 and thereafter Pinki Mandal resided with the present petitioners in district-Murshidabad, West Bengal. The case of the prosecution is that sometime in January/February, 2012 Debasish Mandal who was employed in the CRPF got government accommodation near Agartala and thereafter Pinki Mandal joined him and started living in Agartala. Pinki Mandal committed suicide on 17th August, 2012. As far as the husband Debasish Mandal is concerned the allegation against him is that even at Agartala he tortured his wife and committed acts of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC at Agartala and ultimately fed up with the torture Pinki Mandal committed suicide on 17th August, 2012. The charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against Debasish Mandal reads as follows:

"That from the month of January/February, 2012 till 17th August, 2012 at your official quarters at CRPF Complex, Narsingarh, Agartala under Airport PS you being the husband of Pinki Mandal subjected her to cruelty and assault demanding money and often you used to do that consuming alcohol and you also used to threat her that you would murder her and thereby committed and offence punishable u/s. 498A IPC and within my cognizance;

Secondly, on 17th day of August 2012 your Pinki Mandal Committed suicide at your quarters above mentioned and you abated its commission by your prolonged torture upon her on the demand of money and also by your torture consuming alcohol and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 306 IPC and within my cognizance."

As far as the petitioners are concerned the only charge against them is that they treated the deceased Pinki Mandal with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 IPC at village Bazarsau, P.S. - Reji Nagar in Murshidabad district of West Bengal. The charge framed against the present petitioners is as follows:

"That after few months of the marriage between Debasish Mandal and Pinki Mandal which took place on 18th January, 2009 you Purnima Mandal and Asish Mandal being the mother and brother of Debasish Mandal respectively at your house at village Bazarsau, P.S. Reji Nagar at present Shakti Pur under Murshidabad District of West Bengal subjected said Pinki Mandal to torture on the demand of money and other family matters which continued till her departure for Agartala in the month of January/February, 2012 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 498A IPC and within my cognizance."

A bare reading of the charge framed against the present petitioners shows that the offence with which they are charged is only one under Section 498A IPC. They are not charged with the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

Under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the ordinary place of any trial shall be the place where the offence has been committed. Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. read as follows:

"178. Place of inquiry or trial. -- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or

(c) where an offence, is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or

(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues:-

When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensured, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensured."

Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. provides four situations in which there may be more than one place of inquiry or trial. The first is where it is uncertain in which of several areas the offence has been committed; the second is where the offence is partly committed in one jurisdiction and partly in another; the third is where the offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more than one local area; the last is where it consists of several acts done in more than one area.

Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. also provides that where an offence is committed in one area but the consequence has ensured in another area then the jurisdiction will lie in both the areas. In a case like the present one if the allegation was that the deceased had committed suicide as a result of the cruelty inflicted on her even if that cruelty was inflicted in West Bengal and the suicide is committed in Agartala, the Court at Agartala would have had jurisdiction to decide both the offences. However, the charge, quoted hereinabove, which has been framed against the present petitioners is only with regard to the offence under Section 498A and in the charge there is no allegation against the petitioners that the deceased Pinki Mandal committed suicide because of the cruelty meted out to her in West Bengal. Therefore, the suicide of Pinki Mandal as per the charge is not connected with the cruelty, if any, which may have been meted out to her by the petitioners at West Bengal.

In this view of the matter, the Court at Agartala would have no jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioners alone is quashed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, either with regard to the petitioners or with regard to the other accused and that matter must be decided on its own merits. It is also made clear that if during course of trial there is some evidence that the deceased committed suicide because of the cruelty meted out to her in West Bengal then the trial Court will be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.