IN THE

LEARNED COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE OF KOLKATA

AT KOLKATA
CRIMINAL SUIT NO......./2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER...............................................COMPLAINANT
Versus
SUMITA SEN..............ACCUSED
-
- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT -
CODE: 633
Ta!" #$ C#%&"%&' Ta!" #$ C#%&"%&'
S. N#. Pa(&)*+!a(' Pa,"
N#.
1. Index of Authorities........................................................................... I
2. Statement of Facts............................................................................. II
3. Statement of Jurisdiction................................................................... III
4. Issues for Consideration.................................................................... IV
5. Summary of Aruments.................................................................... V
!. "ritten Su#missions 1
$. %rayer................................................................................................. &
- -I I- -
I%-". #$ A+&/#()&)"' I%-". #$ A+&/#()&)"'
0ACTS 1 CODES2 0ACTS 1 CODES2
1. 'he Code of Crimina( %rocedure) 1*$3
2. 'he Indian %ena( Code) 1&$2
0C 0CASES ASES2 2
1. Annamedevula Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1**5 Cr+J 3*!4
,A%-..........................................................................................................................3)4)$
2. Biswabahan v. Gopen Chandra, AI. 1*!$ SC &*5....................................................3)!
3. D. Vijaala!shmi v. State, ,1**3- 2 Andh +' ,Cri- 15*................................................5
4. /au0ati 1aya(a2shmi 3. State of Andhra %radesh) 1**3 Cr+J 31!2 ,A%-..................2
5. Gola! Chandra "aa! v. State of #rissa, 1**3 Cr+J 2$4 ,4rissa-...............................3
!. Gur$haran Sin%h Bhawnani v. State, 2552 Cr +J $44 ,/e(hi-.......................................3
$. &ondon and &an$anshire 'nsuran$e Co. v. Bino (rishna, AI. 1*45 Ca( 21&.............3
&. )aharashtra State Board of Se$ondar and *i%her Se$ondar +du$ation v. Paritosh
Bhupesh (umar Sheth) 61*&571SC.2*..........................................................................!
*. )eena!shi Sundarammal v. Subramani Aar, AI. 1*55 8ad 3!*.............................3
15. "athu v. State of Rajasthan, 1**! Cr+J *1* ,.a1-.........................................................1
11. Rajendra (umar Behera v. State of #rissa, 2553 Cr+J 4*5 ,4ri-.................................3
12. Rasulba!sh v. +mperor, AI. 1*44 Sind 153) 155.........................................................1
13. Sholapur )un. Corporation v. Ram!rishna, ,1*!&- $1 9om +. 4&1...........................3
14. State of (erala v. )athai Ver%hese, 1*&$ Cri+J 35& ,%ara 1 of Cri +J-......................4
15. Sunderlal v. State of ).P, 2551 Cr+J 32&! ,SC-...........................................................3
1!. ,nion Carbide Corporation v. ,nion of 'ndia, AI. 1**2 SC 24&................................!
1$. ,nion of 'ndia v. Deo!i "andan A%%arwal, 1**1 AI. SC" 2$54...............................4
1&. ,nion of 'ndia v. Ra%hubir Sin%h) 61*&*71$&I'.54&,SC-............................................!
- -II II- -
S&a&"3"%& #$ Fa*&' S&a&"3"%& #$ Fa*&'
'he Com0(ainant most hum#(y sho:eth;
Accused Sumita Sen) the dauhter of the com0(ainant Seeta /e#i :as a((eed to ha3e ta2en
a:ay .s 55555 from the Account of her mother from State 9an2 of India. "hi(e doin so the
dauhter had fored the sinature of her mother from the s0ecimen card. 'he moment it :as
detected the mother had fi(ed com0(aint #efore /etecti3e /e0artment ,Fraud Section- of
+a(#a<ar) =o(2ata. Chare :as framed u>s 45! and 4!5 of Indian %ena( Code. 'he
in3estiation :as started. 'he main 0oint of in3estiation :as the sinature re(ated. 'he
0o(ice send the sinature of the accused to hand:ritin ex0ert to test the 3eracity of the
a((eation. "hi(e the in3estiation :as in 0roress the 9an2 4fficia( :as examined) the
Account #oo2s :ere chec2ed to 3erify :hether the amount :as :ithdra:n) the com0(ainant
Seeta /e#i) :ho :as an aed :ido: :as re0entant for (odin such com0(aint aainst her
o:n dauhter. She cou(d not s(ee0 in the niht. 'hus #ein the state of affairs) she came :ith
an a00(ication #efore the Court of Additiona( Chief 8etro0o(itan 8aistrate) for :ithdra:a(
of the case. ?er modest 0rayer for consideration amonst others :as that due to her o(d ae
and sufferance from diseases) she :as at a (oss) that :hat earth(y #enefit :i(( #e deri3ed in
0ursuin :ith the com0(aint and fer3ent(y 0rayed for the sto00ae of the in3estiation. ?er
0rayer shou(d #e considered on com0assionate round. 'he AC88 raised certain @ueries as
to the tena#i(ity of the a00(ication. First(y as the in3estiation :as in 0rocess) tria( did not
commence) since fina( re0ort or chare sheet :as not su#mitted at such stae) :hether there
:as any 0ro3ision to sto0 the 0roceedin. Second(y the AC88 @uestioned :hether the
chare :as com0ounda#(e or not. 'he %rosecution @uestioned the 1urisdiction of the AC88
in entertainin such 0rayer.
- -III III- -
S&a&"3"%& #$ 4+()'-)*&)#% S&a&"3"%& #$ 4+()'-)*&)#%
'?A +AA.BA/ C4C.' ?AS JC.IS/IC'I4B '4 /AIC/A '?A %.ASAB' 8A''A. CB/A. SAC'I4B
2! .AA/ "I'? SAC'I4B 2* 4F '?A C4/A 4F C.I8IBA+ %.4CA/C.A) 1*$3.
All of whi$h is ur%ed in detail in the written submission and is submitted most respe$tfull.
- -I5 I5- -
I''+"' $#( C#%')-"(a&)#% I''+"' $#( C#%')-"(a&)#%
I. WHETHER THE LEARNED COURT HAS THE 4URISDICTION TO ADMIT THE
PRESENT APPLICATION AND IF THE APPLICATION IS PREMATURE6
- -5 5- -
S+33a(7 #$ A(,+3"%&' S+33a(7 #$ A(,+3"%&'
I. T/" L"a(%"- C#+(& -#"' %#& 8#''"'' &/" ("9+)("- :+()'-)*&)#% &# "%&"(&a)% &/"
8(a7"( *!a)3"- 7 &/" D"$"%-a%& a%- &/" a88!)*a&)#% $#( *#38#+%-)%, )' 8("3a&+(".
It is hum#(y su#mitted that the coni<ance of the case has not #een ta2en as en3isaed
under Section 1*5 of the Code. 'he mere 0resentation of a chare sheet #y the 0o(ice
under s. 1$3) in a maistrateDs court or the mere 0resentation of a com0(aint #y a
0ri3ate indi3idua( does not constitute the initiation of crimina( 0roceedins.
As the 0resent case concerns the fi(in of a com0(aint #efore the 0o(ice and the
su#se@uent in3estiation) C(ause ,#- of Su# Section ,1- of Section 1*5 of the Code
:i(( a00(y. It :i(( ha3e to #e a 0o(ice re0ort as defined under s. 2 ,r- of the Code)
under :hich it must #e a re0ort under s.1$3 ,2-) to i3e the maistrate 1urisdiction to
ta2e coni<ance of the case.
In the 0resent matter as the in3estiation has a(ready #eun and is under :ay #y the
+a(#a<ar %o(ice Station ,Fraud /e0t.- and a(so that the 0rayer of Smt. Seeta /e#i is of
a nature :hich ca((s for com0oundin a nonEcom0ounda#(e offence) the 1udicia(
a00(ication of the same is re@uired. As the 0o(ice re0ort ahs not #een su#mitted as of
yet) the (earned 1ude has not ta2en coni<ance of the matter and it is 0reEmature to
fi(e for an a00(ication for com0oundin the offence.
In the e3ent that the a00(ication is treated as fa((in under C(ause ,a- or ,c-) it is
su#mitted as an ar%uendo that the (earned court cannot a00(y S.4&2 to ma2e the
offences com0ounda#(e.
W()&&"% S+3)'')#%' W()&&"% S+3)'')#%'
I. T/" L"a(%"- C#+(& -#"' %#& 8#''"'' &/" ("9+)("- :+()'-)*&)#% &# "%&"(&a)% &/" 8(a7"(
*!a)3"- 7 &/" D"$"%-a%& a%- &/" a88!)*a&)#% $#( *#38#+%-)%, )' 8("3a&+(".
1. It is hum#(y su#mitted that the coni<ance of the case has not #een ta2en as en3isaed
under Section 1*5 of the Code. 'he mere 0resentation of a chare sheet #y the 0o(ice
under s. 1$3) in a maistrateDs court or the mere 0resentation of a com0(aint #y a
0ri3ate indi3idua( does not constitute the initiation of crimina( 0roceedins
1
. For
ta2in coni<ance) a maistrate re@uires somethin more as he must a00(y his mind to
the facts of the case and then decide on a course of action) in furtherance of such
a00(ication of mind for the 0ur0ose of further 0roceedin :ith the matter.
2
2. As the 0resent case concerns the fi(in of a com0(aint #efore the 0o(ice and the
su#se@uent in3estiation) C(ause ,#- of Su# Section ,1- of Section 1*5 of the Code
:i(( a00(y. It :i(( ha3e to #e a 0o(ice re0ort as defined under s. 2 ,r- of the Code)
under :hich it must #e a re0ort under s.1$3 ,2-) to i3e the maistrate 1urisdiction to
ta2e coni<ance of the case.
3. In the 0resent matter as the in3estiation has a(ready #eun and is under :ay #y the
+a(#a<ar %o(ice Station ,Fraud /e0t.- and a(so that the 0rayer of Smt. Seeta /e#i is of
a nature :hich ca((s for com0oundin a nonEcom0ounda#(e offence) the 1udicia(
a00(ication of the same is re@uired. As the 0o(ice re0ort ahs not #een su#mitted as of
yet) the (earned 1ude has not ta2en coni<ance of the matter and it is 0reEmature to
fi(e for an a00(ication for com0oundin the offence.
;. In the e3ent that the a00(ication is treated as fa((in under C(ause ,a- or ,c-) it is
su#mitted as an ar%uendo that the (earned court cannot a00(y S.4&2 to ma2e the
offences com0ounda#(e.
<. "here the :ife ,de fact com0(ainant- souht 0ermission to :ithdra: the case aainst
her hus#and #y com0oundin the offences under Sections 4*& A) 323) 4*4 and 15* of
the I%C) the Andhra %radesh ?ih Court accorded 0ermission to com0ound the nonE
1
Rasulba!sh v. +mperor, AI. 1*44 Sind 153) 155
2
"athu v. State of Rajasthan, 1**! Cr+J *1* ,.a1-
com0ounda#(e offence under section 4*&A as an exce0tiona( case. 'he ?ih Court
he(d
3
that in matrimonia( cases and that too in exce0tiona( circumstances) in exercise
of inherent 0o:ers) the ?ih Court a(one is com0etent to 0ermit the 0arties to
com0ound a nonEcom0ounda#(e offence. 8aistrates and sessions Judes ha3e no
such 0o:er.
6. 'he 0resent a00(ication #y Smt. Seeta /e#i 0ertains to com0oundin offences :hich
ha3e #een throuh a 0re(iminary in3estiation #y the 0o(ice) #een determined to
constitute to fa(( under Sections 45! and 4!5 of the Indian %ena( Code. 9oth these
offences are nonEcom0ounda#(e in nature and hence the a00(ication shou(d #e re1ected
outriht.
3
Da%%upati jaala!shmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1**3 Cr+J 31!2 ,A%-
Arguendo, T/" &()a! *#+(& *a%%#& *#38#+%- &/" #$$"%*"' $a!!)%, +%-"( '"*&)#%' ;06 a%-
;6< #$ &/" IPC a' #&/ a(" #+& #$ &/" 8+(=)"> #$ S"*&)#% 320 #$ &/" C#-".
?A@ O$$"%*"' >/)*/ 3a7" *#38#+%-"-: 4ffences that may (a:fu((y #e com0ounded are
those that are mentioned in Section 355 of the Code of Crimina( %rocedure) 1*$3 6hereinafter
FcodeD7. 4ffences other than those mentioned cannot #e com0ounded.
4
1. 'he Andhra %radesh ?ih Court refused in a 0etition under s. 4&2 of the code to direct
the su#ordinate courts to accord 0ermission to com0ound an offence :hich is
other:ise nonEcom0ounda#(e under the Code as it :ou(d amount to a direction to the
(o:er court to act in contra3ention of (a:.
5
2. 'he 4rissa ?ih Court refused to a((o: a com0romise in a case under section 35$
I%C) a nonEcom0ounda#(e offence sim0(y #ecause the Su0reme Court a((o:ed
com0oundin of an offence under the said section.
!
BonEcom0ounda#(e offences
shou(d not #e com0ounded #y use or exercise of inherent 0o:ers.
$
3. Su# Section ,*- ma2es it c(ear that any offence not s0ecifica((y mentioned in the
section is not com0ounda#(e and if such offences are com0ounded) the com0osition is
i((ea( and it can #e set aside.
&
?B@ A88!)*a&)#% #$ S.;A2 a%- &/" 8#')&)#% #$ &/" S+8("3" C#+(&: 'he (eis(ati3e mandate
enshrined in Section 325,*- of the Code is manifest(y c(ear. It is couched in a mandatory
form. 'he ?ih Court) in exercise of the 1urisdiction under Section 4&2 of the Code cannot
add) 3ary or amend a statutory 0ro3ision.
*
4
Sholapur )un. Corporation v. Ram!rishna, ,1*!&- $1 9om +. 4&1) at 0.4&3G Gur$haran
Sin%h Bhawnani v. State, 2552 Cr +J $44 ,/e(hi-; the 0ro3ision is exhausti3e and a(so
mandatory in nature.
5
Annamedevula Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1**5 Cr+J 3*!4 ,A%-
!
Gola! Chandra "aa! v. State of #rissa, 1**3 Cr+J 2$4 ,4rissa-
$
Rajendra (umar Behera v. State of #rissa, 2553 Cr+J 4*5 ,4ri-G Sunderlal v. State of ).P,
2551 Cr+J 32&! ,SC-
&
Biswabahan v. Gopen Chandra, AI. 1*!$ SC &*5G &ondon and &an$anshire 'nsuran$e Co.
v. Bino (rishna, AI. 1*45 Ca( 21&G )eena!shi Sundarammal v. Subramani Aar, AI.
1*55 8ad 3!*
*
Annamedevula Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1**5 Cr+J 3*!4 ,A%-
1. It is not the duty of the Court either to en(are the sco0e of the (eis(ation or the
intention of the (eis(ature :hen the (anuae of a 0ro3ision is 0(ain and
unam#iuous. 'he Court cannot reE:rit) recast or reframe the (eis(ation for the 3ery
ood reason that it has no 0o:er to (eis(ate.
15

'he A0ex Court in State of (erala v. )athai Ver%hese
11
;
H"hen the (eis(ature does not s0ea2 the Court inter0retin the re(e3ant 0ro3ision of (a:
cannot su#stitute the ..... 'he ?ih Court cannot do so for) the court can mere(y inter0ret
the sectionG it cannot reE:rite) recast) or redesin the section. In inter0retin the 0ro3ision
the exercise underta2en #y the Court is to ma2e ex0(icit the intention :hich enacted the
(eis(ation. It is not for the court to reframe the (eis(ation for the 3ery ood reason that
the 0o:ers to I(eis(ateI ha3e not #een conferred on the court.H
2. %ar(iament) in its :isdom) thouht that on(y certain offences s0ecified under Section
325 of the Code a(one can #e com0ounded and no other offences. Variety of factors
must ha3e #een ta2en into consideration #y the %ar(iament in (imitin the offences
:hich can #e com0ounded. It is not 0ossi#(e for this Court to ascertain as to :hat
:ere the (eis(ati3e in0uts in enactin Section 325 in to the Code of Crimina(
%rocedure. %ar(iament 2no:s #etter as to :hat facts constitute an offence and as to
:hether such an offence shou(d #e com0ounded. It is a matter of socia( 0o(icy
concernin socia( order. 8ay #e) %ar(iament thouht that such of those offences :hich
are not com0ounda#(e under the Code are offences :here (arer interests of the
society is in3o(3ed. Any orders 0assed #y this Court directin the su#ordinate crimina(
courts to com0ound the offences :hich are not other:ise com0ounda#(e :ou(d
amount to com0e((in the su#ordinate crimina( courts to act in contra3ention of (a:.
Such directions :ou(d #e destructi3e of the .u(e of +a:.
12
3. 'he ?ih Court in D. Vijaala!shmi v. State
13
throuh the /i3ision 9ench too2 the
3ie: that in exce0tiona( circumstances on(y and not as a matter of course) the ?ih
Court can direct the su#ordinate crimina( courts to 0ermit the 0arties to com0ound the
15
,nion of 'ndia v. Deo!i "andan A%%arwal, 1**1 AI. SC" 2$54
11
1*&$ Cri+J 35& ,%ara 1 of Cri +J-
12
Annamedevula Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1**5 Cr+J 3*!4 ,A%-
13
,1**3- 2 Andh +' ,Cri- 15*
offence 0unisha#(e under S. 4*&EA) I.%.C.) on(y. After an e(a#orate consideration) the
/i3ision 9ench he(d;
-the permission sou%ht for to $ompound the offen$e under Se$tion ./01A, '.P.C. pursuant
to the settlement or $ompromise and understandin% between the spouses $an be a$$orded
b the *i%h Court under Se$tion .02, Cr.P.C. is not justified to be used as a matter of
$ourse in ea$h and ever $ase. 3e are of the firm view that in matrimonial $ases, that
too, in e4$eptional $ir$umstan$es where the disputes arose between the wife and the
husband resultin% in filin% a $omplaint and a petition for divor$e whi$h ultimatel
resulted in the form of $ompromise either for divor$e or for re1union, and where some of
the Se$tions $omplained of are $ompundable and some non1$ompoundable, the *i%h
Court alone is $ompetent, e4er$isin% the inherent power vested in it under Se$tion .02,
Cr.P.C. to permit the parties to $ompound a non1$ompoundable offen$e alon% with other
$ompoundable offen$es, after bein% satisfied with the $ompromise entered into between
the parties.-
;. ?o:e3er) the /i3ision 9ench he(d;
H"e are sti(( of the firm 3ie: that in the case of nonEcom0ounda#(e offences in enera(
the ?ih Court has no 0o:er to 0ermit the 0arties to com0ound the same. Sym0athy
to:ards the accused sho:n in s0ecia( set of circumstances is different from a00(yin the
0ro3isions of the Act. Sym0athy cannot #e a round for a00(yin the inherent 0o:ers
3ested in the ?ih Court under Section 4&2) Cr.%.C. It is shou(d #e exercised in
exce0tiona( cases on(y to 0re3ent the a#use of the 0rocess of the Court or to meet the ends
of 1ustice. Smpath has no pla$e to outwei%h the powers %iven under a parti$ular
statute.H
<. In Biswabahan v. Gopen Chandra
14
) the Su0reme Court in cateorica( terms said;
It is therefore c(ear that to ha3e the effect of an ac@uitta( the offence com0ounded must #e
one s0ecified either under su#Esection ,1- or su#Esection ,2- of Section 345 of the o(d
Code ,Section 325 ne:-. 'he 0rinci0(e #ehind the scheme seems to that :rons of certain
c(asses :hich affect main(y a 0erson in his indi3idua( ca0acity or character may #e
sufficient redressed #y com0osition :ith or :ithout the (ea3e of the court as the case may
14
1*!$ Cri+J &2&
#e.
'he Su0reme Court cateorica((y he(d;
H'f a person is $har%ed with an offen$e, then unless there is some provision for
$omposition of it the law must ta!e its $ourse and the $har%e en5uired into resultin%
either in $onvi$tion or a$5uittal. 'f $omposition of an offen$e was permissible under the
law, the effe$t of su$h $omposition would depend on what the law provided for.H
6. It is :e(( esta#(ished doctrine of inter0retation that the 0ro3isions contained in a
statutory enactment ha3e to #e construed as to #e in harmony :ith each other and that
:here) under a s0ecific section or ru(e a 0articu(ar su#1ect has recei3ed s0ecia(
treatment) such s0ecia( 0ro3ision :i(( exc(ude the a00(ica#i(ity of any enera(
0ro3ision :hich miht other:ise co3er the said to0ic
15
.
B. A00(ication of any enera( 0rinci0(e must yie(d to the (imitin terms of the statutory
0rinci0(e itse(f
1!
.
A. It is su#mitted that the decision rendered #y the Constitutiona( 9ench of the Su0reme
Court in ,nion Carbide Corporation v. ,nion of 'ndia
1$
has no: authoritati3e(y
decided that the ?ih Court) in exercise of its inherent 1urisdiction cannot direct
com0oundin of offences :hich are other:ise nonEcom0ounda#(e under the Code.
C. It is necessary to refer to a fe: facts of that case so as to a00reciate as to in :hat
context) the A0ex Court (aid do:n the (a: :hich is re(e3ant for the 0ur0ose. An
action for com0ensation :as initiated #y the Cnion as 0arens 0atriae #efore the
/istrict Court) 9ho0a( in 4.S. Bo. 1113 of 1*&! Cnder 9ho0a( Jas +ea2 /isaster
,%roceesin of C(aims- Act) 1*&5. "hen an inter(ocutory matter 0ertainin to the
interimEcom0ensation came u0 for hearin #efore the Su0reme Court there :as a
Court assisted sett(ement of the main suit c(aim itse(f. 'he crimina( (ia#i(ity of the
Cnion Car#ide Cor0oration :as a(so fina((y terminated and 0ut to an end #y that
Court assisted sett(ement of the main suit. It :as s0ecifica((y ured #efore the
Su0reme Court that the termination of the 0endin crimina( 0roceedins #rouht
15
)aharashtra State Board of Se$ondar and *i%her Se$ondar +du$ation v. Paritosh
Bhupesh (umar Sheth) 61*&571SC.2*
1!
,nion of 'ndia v. Ra%hubir Sin%h) 61*&*71$&I'.54&,SC-
1$
AI. 1**2 SC 24&
a#out #y the orders dated 14th and 15th Fe#ruary) 1*&* is #ad in (a: and :ere (ia#(e
to #e set aside on the round that if the orders are construed as 0ermittin a
com0oundin of offences) they run in the teeth of the statutory 0rohi#ition contained
in Section 325,*- of the Code of Crimina( %rocedure. "hi(e dea(in :ith this issue)
the Su0reme Court he(d
1&
;
H'he order terminatin the 0endin crimina( 0roceedins is not su00orta#(e on the strict
terms of Ss. 325 of 321 or 4&2) Cr.%.C.H
10. A c(ose readin of the said decision of the Su0reme Court :ou(d sho: that e3en the
Su0reme Court) in the a#sence of its 0(enary 1urisdiction under Artic(e 142 of the
Constitution of India) :ou(d not ha3e com0ounded the offence :hich is other:ise
nonEcom0ounda#(e.
1*
?ence) it is hum#(y su#mitted) that the offences cannot #e
com0ounded as they are not :ithin the 0ur3ie: of Section 355 of the Code.
P(a7"( P(a7"(
"herefore) in the (iht of the a#o3e) it is most hum#(y 0rayed #efore this +earned Court
to dec(are;
1&
Supra n.1$ at 0.2$&
1*
Annamedevula Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1**5 Cr+J 3*!4 ,A%-
T# -)'3)'' &/" a88!)*a&)#% $)!"- 7 S3&. S""&a D"=)D )& ")%, 8(" 3a&+(".
I$ &/" a(,+3"%& )' %#& a**"8&"-D &# -"*!a(" &/a& &/" #$$"%*"' +%-"( *#%')-"(a&)#%
*a%%#& " *#38#+%-"- -+" &# '&a&+&#(7 a(.
And pass an other order that it ma deem fit.
/ate; 1&
th
January) 2515
Counse( code; !33
,Counse( for Com0(ainants-