K K RAM Vs. PRITHWIRAJ BUCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the proceedings pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate should not be quashed on the ground of absence of territorial jurisdiction.

(2.) The material facts are as follows: One Prithwiraj Bucha filed a petition of complaint against the present petitioner K.K. Ram alleging that his wife had been enticed away from his house in Calcutta by some unknown person, that sometime thereafter he received a communication from the accused K.K. Ram stating that the wife wag staying under the care and guidance of the Bengal Hindu Mahasabha (I understand that the place where she wag staying was situated in Lillooah outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Presidency Magistrate). Thereupon the complainant Prithwiraj Bucha saw the accused and endeavoured to secure the restoration of his wife, but the accused refused to restore the wife to the complainant. The complainant had since been informed that the accused had removed the petitioner's wife to a room in Garden Beach, which is also outside the jurisdiction of the Presidency Magistrate and that the accused was there living in adultery with the wife. He accordingly complained that offences punishable Under Secs.497 and 498, Indian Penal Code, had been committed. The accused was summoned. Objection was taken by the defence to the Presidency Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that the offences, if any, had taken place outside the jurisdiction of The Presidency Magistrate and within the jurisdiction of The Alipore Court. The learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate overruled the objection and directed that the case should proceed.

(3.) When the rule was issued the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate submitted an explanation. In that explanation he pointed out that it was perfectly clear from the petition of complaint that the wife lived with her husband at P. 6, Kalakar Street, Calcutta, and that she was missing from that house. The learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate seems to be of the opinion that as the wife last lived with her husband within the jurisdiction of the Presidency Magistrate, the Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to try this case. I am unable to accept this view. The only section of the Criminal Procedure Code which is applicable to the present case in this respect is Section 177 land that section provides that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. None of the succeeding Secs.178 to 184 have any application to the facts of the present case. There is no allegation that the present accused seduced the woman in Calcutta. There is no suggestion that he had anything to do with the woman while she was in Calcutta or before she reached Lillooah. There is no allegation that any offence was committed by the accused other than in Lillooah within the District of How rah or at Garden Beach within the district of 24 Parganas. In these circumstances the Chief Presidency Magistrate had obviously no jurisdiction to enquire into offences, punishable Under Secs.497 and 498 in the present case.