(1.) Proceeding being Complaint Case No.840C/2010 (T.R. No.371 of 2010) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah under Sections 379/323 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged on the ground that in the petition of complaint the incident was alleged to have occurred on 29.8.2010 between 10:30 A.M. to 12:00 Noon whereas in the initial deposition the opposite party no.2/complainant stated that the incident took place on 29.08.2010 at 8:00 P.M. in the night. It has also been alleged that there is wide variation between the manner and course of commission of the alleged incident as depicted in the petition of complaint and that in the initial deposition. The amount stolen is also at variance.
(2.) In this factual backdrop Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Alternatively, he submits that bearing in mind the patent inconsistency in the initial deposition and the petition of complaint as to the time of incident and other circumstances, mandatory enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended) ought to have been held in view of the fact that the petitioners are residents of a different State, namely Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the allegations in the petition of complaint disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence. He further submits that the alleged variations did not go to the root of the case and proceeding ought not to be quashed on that score. He relies on a judgment and order dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Court in C.R.R. No.2001 of 2013 to support his contention that failure to hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of cases where the accused persons reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court without anything more is not sufficient to quash the proceeding or set aside the order issuing process.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the parties.