SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sujit Kumar Guha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 October, 2018

1

12
SB 05.10.2018
Ct. No. 40
C.R.R. 178 OF 2017
With
C.R.A.N. 2452 OF 2018

Sujit Kumar Guha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal Ors.

Mr. Soumajit Chatterjee
…. For the petitioner

Mr. P. K. Bhattacharyya
… For the O.P. Nos. 2 3

Mr. Avishek Sinha,
….. For the State

Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding

being G.R. Case No. 527 of 2016 arising out of Indas Police Station

Case No. 91 of 2016 dated 02.06.2016 under section 498A/323/506/34

of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bishnupur, Bankura.

At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the proceeding of the aforesaid case will not be quashed since it has

been assailed only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. In view of

section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the case should be

transferred to Burdwan Court within whose local jurisdiction the cause of
2

action arose. Leading this Court through the F.I.R. learned counsel for

the petitioner sought to impress that only for the purpose of attracting the

jurisdiction of Bankura, it has been alleged in the petition of complaint

that the husband of the victim threatened her while she was in her

paternal house at Bankura. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner

is that for the convenience of the parties the case should be transferred

to Burdwan since there is another case pending between the same

parties at Burdwan Court. It is also argued that the parental house of the

victim from Burdwan is only 65 kilometers whereas the distance is more

than 100 kilometers from Bankura Court. To buttress his submissions,

learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of Manoj Kumar

Sharma and Others vs. State of Chattisgarh and Another reported in

(2016) 9 SCC 1 paragraph 25 and K.V.S. Rao vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation and Others reported in 2014 (2) Supreme 464.

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that

there will be no difficulty or inconvenience if the criminal proceeding

being G.R. Case No. 527 of 2016 which is pending at Bishnupur Court is

tried in the said Court and there is no justification for transfer of this case

to Burdwan Court.

On behalf of the State / opposite party no. 1 learned counsel submits

that since part of cause of action took place in the parental house of the

victim, while she was residing there, the argument on behalf of the

petitioner on the point of territorial jurisdiction is not justified.
3

In Manoj Kumar Sharma’s case (supra) the question of territorial

jurisdiction was one of the grounds for quashing of the proceeding along

with other grounds and it was observed that at the stage of investigation

it cannot be held that S.H.O. does not have territorial jurisdiction to

investigate the crime. But after the investigation is over, if the officer

arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R.

has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he will forward the

case to the Magistrate concerned empowered to take cognizance of the

offence. This case is clearly distinguishable on facts from the case at

hand wherein the F.I.R. was lodged within the jurisdiction of Bankura

P.S., the parental house of the victim, where she last resided after she

was allegedly driven out from her matrimonial home at Burdwan. It is true

that according to the F.I.R. the alleged offences took place in the

matrimonial home of the victim at Burdwan but the F.I.R. also discloses

that when the victim was driven out from her matrimonial home she went

to her parental house at Bankura and while residing there, her husband

threatened her. It is evident that the offences alleged against the

petitioner took place partly within the jurisdiction of Bankura. Section

498A is a continuing offence. In view of section 178 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, such an offence may be inquired into or tried by a

Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. In this context it

would be beneficial to quote the relevant provisions of section 178 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:
4

“178. Place of inquiry or trial.– (a) …………….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) …………………

it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of

such local areas.”

K.V.S. Rao’s case (supra) is also not applicable to the case in hand

for the simple reason that the aforesaid case related to a transfer petition

under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was

observed therein that when two or more cases of a similar nature are

pending against the petitioner / respondents they can by transferred from

one Court to another in the interest and convenience of all parties. In the

case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a

proceeding for the custody of the minor child of the victim is pending in

Burdwan Court so it would be for the convenience of both the parties if

the present case is also transferred to Burdwan Court. This submission is

devoid of merit in view of the fact that the two cases are not similar in

nature and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3

categorically submits that it will be convenient for his clients if the case is

tried in Bankura Court.

5

For the reasons aforestated there is no merit in the application being

C.R.R.178 of 2017 which is accordingly dismissed.

The connected application being C.R.A.N. 2452 of 2018 for extension

of interim order also stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to

the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.

(Asha Arora, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation