MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN Vs. MUSTT. RUGENA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are accused in CR Case No. 553 of 2008, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC, has sought for transfer of the case from the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor, Nagaon, where the case is presently pending, to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. The ground for seeking transfer are, broadly speaking, thus: The marriage having been solemnized between the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, i.e., the opposite party herein, at Kaliabor, the complainant came to, and started living at, her matrimonial house, with the petitioner No. 1, as her husband, at Golaghat, where the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are mother and sister respectively of the petitioner No. 1, have been living. The opposite party, soon after her marriage, started putting pressure on the petitioner No. 1 to live with her separately from her family. As the petitioner No. 1 did not agree to what the opposite party wanted inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 could not have left his mother and sister, the petitioner No. 1 being the only male member in the family, the opposite party started raising quarrel on one pretext and another. Eventually, she left her matrimonial house and, after haying gone back to her parental house, at village Jayantipur, under Kaliabor Police Station, in the District of Nagaon, she has, now, instituted the said complaint case falsely alleging, inter alia, that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband (i.e., the petitioner No. 1), by her mother-in-law (i.e., the petitioner No. 2) and by her sister-in-law (i.e., the petitioner No. 3), because her parents could not accede to the demands for money and other valuables raised by the accused-petitioners and she has been thrown out of her matrimonial house.

(2.) The petitioners contend that according to the complaint, which the opposite party has lodged, she has been subjected to cruelty at Golaghat and, hence, the learned Magistrate, at Kaliabor, where the complainant is presently residing, had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences committed by the present petitioners under Sections 498A/323/34, IPC and the complaint can be quashed. However, as the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor, has already taken cognizance of the offences aforementioned, though the offences have not been, according to the petitioners, committed within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, at Kaliabor, it is submitted, on behalf of the accused-petitioners, that instead of quashing the complaint may be transferred to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, which is the competent court inasmuch as the offences, if any, in the present case, have been committed within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat.

(3.) I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners, and Mr. D.R. Saikia, learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party.