BANIPROUABARUA Vs. RITA BARUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 20.12.1993 in Complaint Case No. 2588 of 1992. By filing this application the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have made the prayer for quashing not only the impugned order passed by Ld. S.D.J.M. Alipore on 20.12.1993. but also the entire Criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 2588 of 1992.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 who happened to the mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the O.P.-wife was in brief that the O.P.-wife filed the instant Complaint Case No. 2588 of 1992 under Sections 498A/342/34 I.P.C. before the court of Ld. S.D.J.M., Alipore making various allegations. To be specific, the case of the O.P. in the case was that the Petitioner No.2 married her on 11.5.1987 at Maheshtala, District 24-Parganas (South) West Bengal according to Buddhist rites and took her to her matrimonial home at Naharkatia, Assam and from the very inception she was tortured by Petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 4 for not bringing sufficient dowry. Despite such torture, O.P. lived in the matrimonial home and out of the wedlock with Petitioner No.2 a male child was born. It was the further allegation of the O.P.- wife that her mother-in-law being Petitioner No.1 pressurised her for bringing money and other articles from her father. It so happened that on 20.8.1991 Petitioner No.1 assaulted her and threatened the O.P.- wife that her baby would be taken away from her if she failed to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her father. In the circumstances O.P.- wife left her matrimonial home in Naharkatia, Assam for Calcutta assuring that she would persuade her father to give her money as demanded by Petitioner No.1. In June, 1992 Petitioner No.2-husband came to the house of his father-in-law where O.P.-wife was living and thereafter brought back the O.P.-wife and the baby to Naharkatia in Assam. At such time also Petitioner No.2-husband reminded O.P. that she should bring money from her father as demanded by Petitioner No.1, her mother-in-law. But, however, it was her ill- luck that after her such return to matrimonial home in Assam, Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 again started misbehaving with O.P.-wife and tortured her, but her husband being Petitioner No.2 did not deliberately take any notice of such a assault. Thereafter on receipt of a telegraphic massage, the brothers of O.P. came to the matrimonial home of O.P. at Naharkatia and at such a time Petitioner No.1 mother-in-law became furious when the O.P.'s brothers expressed their inability to pay money to Petitioner No.1 as demanded. At such a time Petitioner No.1 directed the O.P. to quit the matrimonial home. Finding no other alternative O.P. came back to her father's place in Mahestala, 24-Parganas (South) West Bengal and the custody of her child was forcibly taken by Petitioner No.1 in spite of protest. In view of this incident the brothers of O.P. visited Naharkatia Police Station and lodged a written complaint and then came back to their house in Mahestala, 24-Parganas in West Bengal with O.P. The case of the Petitioners was that the complaint lodged by O.P. against them was baseless inasmuch as they never inflicted any torture, either mental or physical, on O.P. According to the Petitioners there were no ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and the complaint case filed by the O.P. against them in the Alipore Court was baseless. It was further case of the Petitioners that the diary lodged by the O.P. against the Petitioner No.2-husband on 3.12.1992 was also baseless. But nonetheless Ld. S.D.J.M., Alipore took cognizance on the written complaint filed by O.P. against them in Alipore Court and issued process against them. According to the Petitioners no offence was comitted by anyone of them on O.P. within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. S.D.J.M., Alipore and hence the entire Criminal proceeding at Alipore should be quashed. To be specific, according to the petitioners, offence, if at all, has been committed within the jurisdiction of Naharkatia, Assam and not within the jurisdiction of Alipore. Hence the criminal proceeding now pending against them before the Court of Ld. S.D.J.M., Alipore and the impugned order passed by Ld. S.D.J.M., Alipore, on 20.12.1993 should be quashed.

(3.) I have had the opportunity of hearing Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length in the matter.