BARUN BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant revisional application the legality and propriety of the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 1049 of 2007 under Sections 406/120B, IPC and order passed therein dated 4.10.2007 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Siliguri has been called in question with prayer for quashing of the same.

(2.) Both the petitioners contend that the petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant, i.e., the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner No.2 is her mother-in-law. Their son was married to OP No.2 on 22.11.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and after marriage they led conjugal life at the place of vocation of his son Som Sankar Banerjee at Mumbai. In the month of June 2005 his son was transferred to Bangalore where the OP No.2 used to reside with him. On 23.2.2006 the OP No.2 left her matrimonial home at Bangalore with her belongings along with her mother and brother and their attempt to bring her back was proved to be abortive. His son lodged a G.R. Entry with the local police station in January, 2007. Subsequently the OP No. 2 filed a written complaint on 3.8.2007 with the Kotwali Police Station alleging of commission of offence under Section 498A, IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioners and five others which was registered under Kotwali Police Station Case No. 341/07 dated 3.8.2007. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in that case on 26.9.2007 against all the accused persons. Thereafter on 3.10.2007 the OP No.2 filed another complainant before, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri against the present petitioners and their son for commission of offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code alleging, inter alia, that OP No.2 entrusted her Stridhan property with the son of the petitioners and at the time of leaving her matrimonial home the son of the petitioners did not allow her to take back her Stridhan property being encouraged by his parents. By order dated 3.10.2007 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri took cognisance of the offence and transferred the same to the 2nd Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri. On prayer of the complainant the learned transferee Court issued a search warrant on 21.11.2007 under Section 93, Cr.P.C. for recovery of her Stridhan articles from the Bangalore residence of the son of the petitioner. On 1.3.2008 the petitioners herein and their son surrendered before the learned Court concerned and were released on bail. The OP No.2 subsequently also filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C being M.R. Case No. 73/07 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri who was pleased to grant an interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per mensem which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 9,000 by an interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court and the matter is still sub-judice. The OP No. 2 also filed a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 177 of 2007 before the Court of the learned District Judge, Darjeeling seeking dissolution of their marriage and permanent alimony of Rs. 70,00,000 with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per mensem.

(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioners that in the first complaint lodged under Section 498A, IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prevention Act there was no allegation of retention of the Stridhan property by them and after a long lapse of time by instituting another case the OP No.2 purposefully and motivatedly introduced the story of unlawful retention of Stridhan property for harassment of the present petitioners who are all senior citizens. Under the circumstances they have prayed for quashing the said proceeding being Case No. 1049 of 2007 under Section 498A/406, IPC and all orders passed therein including order dated 3.10.2007. Learned lawyer for O.P. No.2 has opposed the move and contended that the complaint under Section 406, IPC has been lodged according to law and the aggrieved party may claim for return of her Stridhan property from the place of her residence where she wants return of the same. Learned Lawyer for the State also supported such contention and further contended that the question of jurisdiction should be taken at the Court of first instance and the same cannot be called in question in revision.