SANKAR PRASAD ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. MITALI ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate , 2nd Court at Asansol has territorial jurisdiction to try the case is the subject-matter of the application filed by the accused persons. The opposite party No.1 lodged a complaint with the learhed Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol against the two petitioners and another alleging offences under Sections 498A/323/406/ 506/34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) Marriage was solemnized between the opposite party No. 1 and the accused No.1 Suvendu Roychowdhury (not the petitioner) herein at Adconagar in the District of Hooghly on 28.11.2005. Stridhan articles consisting of gold ornaments and other valuable articles were given and entrusted to the accused persons.The complainant started living matrimonial life in the house of her husband Suvendu at Bhadrakali under P.S. Uttarpara and there the two petitioners-accused persons who are the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the complainant as also the husband started inflicting physical and meotal torture upon the complainant and ground of such torture is primarily that the gifted items /stridhan articles were of inferior quality. In spite of torture having been perpetrated upon her she decided to live in the matrimonial home in the hope that in future everything would be settled but in vain. Complainant conceived and she came down to her father's house as she was denied any medication and the husband said that the child in the womb was not his child. All the: accused persons kicked her and severely assaulted her. A child was bom in the hospital but seeing the child they made vulgar remarks and on 3.12.2007 the husband paid a visit to the complainant's father's house at Puranhat under P.S. Hirapur and told the complainant that the child did not match his face and she carried the sin of some other person. The complainant and the members of her father's family were traumatized and thereafter the accused No.1 left for his home.

(3.) Learned Magistrate issued processes under Sections 498A/323/ 406/506/34 of the I.P.C. and proceeded to hold trial.