PRAMOD JAJOO Vs. PUNAM JAJOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings of complaint case No. C/415823 of 2014 under section 403/406 IPC pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 19th Court Calcutta on threefold grounds. Firstly, it has been contended in the aforesaid application that the averments made in the petition of complaint do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Secondly, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case since the alleged cause of action arose in Rajasthan which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The third ground relates to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-section (1) of section 202 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) At the time of hearing, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner addressed this Court only on the point of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of section 202 Cr.P.C.. It is argued that according to the petition of complaint the accused/petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. By the impugned order dated 16/2/2015 process was issued against the petitioner without the mandatory inquiry as contemplated under section 202(1) Cr.P.C.. Referring to the order impugned learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress that there was no postponement of issuance of process as mandated under section 202 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused/petitioner. Placing reliance upon the case of S.S. Binu versus State of West Bengal and another,2018 CrLJ 3769 learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that as process was issued against the petitioner without an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., the matter should be remitted to the learned Magistrate for complying with the aforesaid provisions. In this context the relevant paragraph 69 of the judgment has been referred which reads as follows:

(3.) Referring to the orders dated 30/1/2015, 9/2/2015 and 16/2/2015 passed by the learned Magistrate, learned counsel for the opposite party countered that it is evident from the said orders that after examination of the complainant on oath there was postponement of issuance of process as mandated under section 202(1) Cr.P.C.. It is pointed out that on the adjourned date that is, on 16/2/2015 another witness was examined on solemn affirmation and only thereafter the learned Magistrate directed issuance of process. There is therefore due compliance of section 202 Cr.P.C.. To buttress his submission learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon Vijay Dhanuka and others versus Najima Mamtaj and others, 2014 14 SCC 638. Learned counsel for the opposite party particularly referred to paragraphs 3 and 14 of the judgement. The relevant paragraph 3 of the judgement reads as follows: