NANDADULAL DEY Vs. PUTUL DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Tapas Ghose and the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Mr. Subhas Bhattacharjee appearing with Mr. Sumit Roy. Con sidered the materials on record.

(2.) By this revision u/S. 397/401, 482 of the Cr. P.C. the accused-petitioners have challenged the pro ceeding in complaint case No. 1383/94 and also the order dated 22/11/1994 passed by the Ld. CJM Howrah, by which the Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/S. 498A of the IPC and directed issuance of summons. Mr. Ghose appear ing for the petitioners contended that according to the petition of complaint filed by the O.P. wife herein, the entire incident of torture, both physical and mental took place within the district town of Hooghly, that is, at Chuchura and thereafter on coming back to her father's place the wife O.P. had fallen ill. As the complaint has been filed before the Ld. C.J.M. Howrah and as the Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the same, the entire proceeding has been initiated before him. He further contended that the Ld. Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition in view of the fact that the entire incident of cruelty took place at Chichura within the district of Hooghly. Mr. Bhattacharjee, on the other hand contended on behalf of the wife-O.P. that in views of S. 179 of the Cr. P.C. the offence may be tried by the Ld. C.J.M., Howrah. Mr. Bhattacharjee further contended that as the wife O.P. had fallen ill at the residence of her father at Howrah, the Ld. C.J.M. Howrah has jurisdiction to try the matter or to enquire into the matter. In support of his conten tion he relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Vijai Ratan Sharma v. State of U.P. in 1988 Cri LJ 1581. A single Judge of the Court held, inter alia, at page 1582, para 5 of that decision as under :

(3.) The revisional application is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.