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.)