AMARDEEP SINHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application dated 23. 3. 07 has been filed to quash a proceeding being C-524 of 2003 under Sections 498/406/120b/506/326, i. P. C. pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 defacto complainant lodged a petition of complaint to the learned C. M. M. , Calcutta, being case No. C-524 of 2003 against her husband and other in laws alleging offences under Sections 498a/406/120b/506/306, I. P. C. with the facts that after solemnization of marriage which took place In the year 1992 she had been living in her matrimonial home and she was subjected to constant physical and mental torture on demand of dowry in the sum of RS. 1 lac. She was harassed and coerced for fulfilling the demand of husband and other in laws and to bring the peace her father paid Rs. 25,000/ -. It has been alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage a cash of Rs. 50,000/- was provided to the accused petitioner along with presentation of gold ornaments, almirah, silver ornaments and other valuable articles and all these were delivered to the petitioner at the time of marriage at 28, Vivekananda Road, Calcutta-6 and all these articles were carried to the matrimonial home. Still then the greed of the accused person continued and the complainant wife came to be subjected to physical and mental torture, abused by filthy words over the demand of money which however cannot be fulfileld and several events of assault and torture have occurred and at long last on 3. 5. 03 she was driven out from matrimonial home at New Delhi and she was forced to come back to Kolkata to reside with her parents where she was medically treated after she was assaulted. Even when she was in Kolkata she came to be threatened over telephone with dire consequences and was abused filthy words.

(3.) THIS proceeding is sought to be quashed on the sole ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction because the alleged incidence of cruelty and torture took place which was the matrimonial home of the petitioner. The learned Advocate for the petitioner takes me to a decision in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai as reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 : 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 972 wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when acts complained of had taken place at a certain place and complaint was field in another place the application of Section 178 (c), Cr. P. C. does not apply because no part of the cause of action arose at the place where the complaint was filed.