AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.
This revision petition is directed, against the order dated 26.12.96 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, issuing process under section 498 (A)/406/5 06IPC. Two points have been raised by the learned counsel (1) the allegation made in the complaint are nothing but carbon copy impression of divorce petition filed by the respondent, and (2) the Court at Guwahati had no territorial jurisdiction to issue process.
It was argued that having obtained a decree of divorce the respondentwife should have been satisfied and not filed the present complaint, as she did. It may be a desirable part of conduct, but is certainly not a legal bar for filing the complaint. So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the latest judgment of the Supreme Court itself provides the answer. In the instant case the complaint reveals a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation meted out to the compalinantrespondent in the hands of the accusedpetitioner and in such continuing offence, on some occasions the petitioner had taken part. Therefore, clause (c) of section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. (See (1997) 5 SCG 30, Sujata Mukharjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukharjee).
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.