RAM SWARUP AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings being G.R. Case No. 945 of 2010 arising out of Jagachha Police Station Case No. 90 of 2010 dated 16.03.2010 under section 498A/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act now pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. The six petitioners herein have contended that the opposite party No. 1 was married to the petitioner No. 3 herein according to Hindu rites and customs on 10th April, 2006. At that time her father gave gold ornaments, cash of Rs. 1 lac and other articles. Questioning the quality of those articles she was subjected to torture by the petitioner/accused who also demanded further money for which her father gave a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- in October, 2006 and thereafter again a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid. Unfortunately, on 24th January, 2010 she was driven out from her matrimonial home by her husband and other in-laws and since then she is residing at her parental home under Dasnagar Police Station, District -Howrah. Accordingly, she has lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Jagachha Police Station, Howrah on 16th March, 2010 on grounds of physical and mental torture, cruelty etc. giving rise to the aforesaid P.S. case which is now being challenged.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Lawyer for the petitioners that the said complainant/opposite party No. 1 was in the habit of leaving her matrimonial home frequently without their consent which was opposed by them for which they have been falsely impleaded in this case. From the contents of the FIR it will appear that the place of the alleged assault, torture, cruelty etc. did take place at the matrimonial home of the complainant within the jurisdiction of District Hooghly but the complainant has been lodged before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah who has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. Therefore, the proceeding should be quashed.

(3.) Learned Lawyer for the State on the contrary has stated that since the case is at investigation stage, the petitioner/accused cannot raise any question regarding jurisdiction of the Court until chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken against them. The points raised by them can be agitated before the learned Trial Court after completion of investigation. Referring to the principles laid down in Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 1999 8 SCC 728, he has contended that the police officer is competent to investigate any cognizable offence but the IO can forward the case to the police station having territorial jurisdiction if he comes to the conclusion that the crime was committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction. It is specifically held therein that for the aforesaid ground the police officer cannot refuse to record the FIR and investigate into the case. Therefore, there is no merit in this application which is liable to be dismissed.