Monday, July 22, 2019 | ePaper

An oppressed woman cannot be repulsed from the door of Court

  • Print
High Court Division :
(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
AKM Abdul Hakim J     
SM Mozibur Rahman J     
Abdul Karim ………Petitioner
               VS
State……………Opposite-Party

Judgment
 March 13th, 2017

Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Doman Ain (VIII of 2000)
 Sections 11(Ga) and 27(1) (Kha)(Kha)
The Tribunal can take cognizance of any offence in the interest of Justice even if no such  recommendationis made after inquiry for
Proceeding with a case.        ……(10)
HMA Alam, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
Md Akramul Haque Baki, Advocate-For the Added- Opposite-Party No.2.
Md Harun-ar-Rashid  DAG with Shah Abdul Hatem  AAG and MA Kamrul Hasan Khan, AAG-For the State.
Judgment
SM Mozibur Rahman J : On an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceeding of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Case No. 140 of 2015, arising out of CP Case No.31 of 2015 under Section 11(Ga) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000 now pending in the court of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Cox's Bazar should not be quashed and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.
2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the Rule, are that complainant-opposite party No.2 filed a complaint petition on 11-1-2015 before the learned Judge of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Cox's Bazar against the accused petitioner alleging inter alia that the complainant got married with the accused petitioner on 7-5-2014. They enjoyed their conjugal life happily for one month and then the accused petitioner began to torture his wife physically and mentally for bringing dowry from her father's house. On 1-8-2014 at about 2-00 pm the accused petitioner demanded an amount of Taka 5,00,000 (five lacs) as dowry which was denied by his wife and then the accused petitioner inflicted blows with the stick abruptly causing injuries upon the right and left arms, right elbow and right thigh of the victim Anjuman Akter (Munni). Thereafter, the accused petitioner after taking away gold and valuable clothes of his wife, drove her out from his house. At one stage of the occurrence, the neighbouring peoples and local winesses rushed to the place of occurrence and took the victim to Ukhiya Hospital for treatment.
3. Subsequently, being failed to lodge a First Information Report with local police station complainant opposite party No.2 filed a petition of complaint before the learned Judge of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Cox's Bazar. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after examining the complainant opposite party No. 2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 asked Judicial Magistrate 1st Class of his jurisdiction for making inquiry into the matter and submit report upon which the learned Magistrate submitted report against the petitioner stating that primafacie case has been made out against the accused petitioner and others. Having found this inquiry report the learned Judge of the Tribunal took cognizance of the offence under Section 11 (Ga) of tne Nari-oShishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended up to 2003). After accepting the inquiry report learned Judge issued warrant of arrest against the accused petitioner who was subsequently enlarged on bail. Thereafter he filed the instant quashment petition on the ground that learned Judge of the Tribunal committed error in taking cognizance of the offence violating the provision laid down in Section 27(1)1(Kha) (Kha) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Ain, 2000.
4. Mr. HMA Alam, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Judge of the Tribunal did not not comply 1 (Kha) (Kha) and as such taking cognizance violating the mandatory provision of such section is liable to be set aside.
5. He further submits that the opposite party complainant was divorced by the petitioner on 9-9-2014 and notice of such divorce was sent to the local Chairman of the Union Parishad on 10-09-2014 under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance , 1961. Since relation of conjugal life between the parties was dissolved, proceeding initiated against the accused petitioner is false and fabricated and as such it is liable to be quashed. In support of dissolution of marriage by Talak, the accused petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the local Union Parishad, learned Advocate added.
6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant opposite party No. 2 submits that after observing  all legal formalities which need to be followed in this regard, the learned Judge of the Tribunal took cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioner without violating any provision of law. Learned Advocate lastly submits that for the purpose of prolonging the trial of the case the instant quashment petitioner has been filed by the accused petitioner.
7. Inview of the above submission of the learned advocates of both the parties, we have carefully perused the quashment petition along with the papers annexed thereto. With regard to the effectiveness of Talak proclaimed by the accused petitioner on 9-9-2014 and sending notice thereof to the local Union Parishad on 10-9-2014, it appears that having received the notice  of Talak given by the accused petitioner, local Chairman of the Union Parishad did not take any step as per law. The certificate issued by the Chairman of the local Union Parishad Annexure-F shows that notice of Talak was received by him on 15-9-2014. Even if it is considered as true, Talak will be effective on and from 15-12-2014 after expiry of 90 days. But the occurrence of this case took place petitioner and complainant opposite party No. 2 was not dissolved. In that view of the matter we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that complainant was not his wife at the time of occurrence of the case. Second point raised by the learned Advocate for petitioner is the violation of provision envisaged in Section 27 (1) 1 (Kha) (Kha) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 which runs as follows :
২৭ । ট্রাইব্যুনালে এখতিয়ার  (১) সাব-ইন্সপেক্টর পদমর্যাদার নিম্নে নহেন এমন কোন পুলিশ কর্মকর্তা বা এতদুদ্দেশ্যে সরকারের নিকট হইতে সাবধাণ বা বিশেষ আদেশ দ্বারা ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত কোন ব্যক্তির লিখিত রিপোর্ট ব্যতিরেকে কোন ট্রাইবুনাল কোন অপরাধ বিচারার্থ গ্রহণ করিবেন না ।
(১ক) কোন অভিযোগকারী উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন কোন পুলিশ কর্মকর্তাকে বা ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তিকে কোন অপরাধের অভিযোগ গ্রহণ করিবার জন্য অনুরোধ করিয়া ব্যর্থ হইয়াছেন মর্মে হলফনামা সহকারে  ট্রাইব্যুনালের নিকট অভিযোগ দাখিল করিলে ট্রাইব্যুনাল অভিযোগকারীকে পরীক্ষা করিয়া --
(ক) সস্তষ্ট হইলে অভিযোগটি অনুসন্ধানের (রহয়ঁরৎু) জন্য কোন ম্যাজিষ্ট্রেট কিংবা অন্য কোন ব্যক্তিকে নির্দেশ প্রদান করিবেন এবং অনুসন্ধানের জন্য নির্দেশপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তি অভিযোগটি অনুসন্ধান করিয়া সাত কার্য দিবসের মধ্যে ট্রাইব্যুনালের নিকট রিপোর্ট প্রদান করিবেন :
(খ) সস্তষ্ট না হইলে অভিযোটি সরাসরি নাকচ করিবেন ।
(১খ) উপ-ধারা (১ক) এর অধীন রিপোর্ট প্রাপ্তির পর কোন ট্রাইব্যুনাল যদি এই মর্মে সš'ষ্ট হয় যে,
(ক) অভিযোগকারী উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন কোন পুলিশ কর্মকর্তাকে বা ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তিকে কোন অপরাধের  অভিযোগ গ্রহণ করিবার জন্য অনুরোধ করিয়া ব্যর্থ হইয়াছেন এবং অভিযোগের সমর্থনে প্রাথমিক সাক্ষ্য প্রমাণ আছে সেই ক্ষেত্রে ট্রাইব্যুনাল উক্ত রিপোর্ট ও অভিযোগের ভিত্তিতে অপরাধটি বিচারার্থ গ্রহণ করিবেন ;
(খ) অভিযোগকারী উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীনে কোন পুলিশ কর্মকর্তাকে বা ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত ব্যক্তিকে কোন অপরাধের অভিযোগ গ্রহণ করিবার জন্য অনুরোধ করিয়া ব্যর্থ হইয়াছেন মর্মে প্রমাণ পাওয়া যায় নাই কিংবা অভিযোগের সমর্থনে  কোন প্রাথমিক সাক্ষ্য প্রামান পাওয়া যায় নাই সেই ক্ষেত্রে  ট্রাইব্যুনাল অভিযোগটি নাকচ করিবেন ।
(১গ) উপ-ধারা (১) এবং (১ক) এর অধীন  অধীন প্রাপ্ত রিপোর্টে কোন ব্যক্তির বিরুদ্ধে অপরাধ সংঘটনের অভিযোগ বা ততসম্পর্কে কার্যক্রম গ্রহণের সুপারিশ না থাকা সত্তেও ট্রাইব্যুনাল, যথাযথ এবং ন্যায়বিচারের স্বার্থে প্রয়োজনীয় মনে করিলে, কারণ উল্লেখপূর্বক উক্ত ব্যক্তির ব্যাপারে সংশ্লিষ্ট অপরাধ বিচারার্থ গ্রহণ করিতে পারিবেন ।
(২) যে ট্রাইব্যুনাল এখতিয়ারাধীন এলাকায় কোন অপরাধ বা উহার কোন অংশ সংঘটিত হইয়াছে অথবা যেখানে অপরাধী বা, একাধিক অপরাধীর ক্ষেত্রে , তাহাদের যে কোন একজনকে পাওয়া গিয়াছে, সেই ¯'ান বা ট্রাইব্যুনালের এখতিয়ারাধীন, সেই ট্রাইব্যুনালে অপরাধটি বিচারার্থ গ্রহনের জন্য রিপোর্ট বা অভিযোগ পেশ করা যাইবে এবং সেই ট্রাইব্যুনাল অপরাধটির বিচার করিবে ।
(৩) যদি এই আইনের অধীন কোন অপরাধের সহিত কোন অন্য কোন অপরাধ এমনভাবে জড়িত থাকে যে, ন্যায়বিচারের স্বার্থে উভয় অপরাধের বিচার একই সংগে বা একই মামলা করা প্রয়োজন, তাহা হইলে উক্ত অন্য অপরাধটির বিচার এই আইনের অধীন  অপরাধের সহিত এই আইনের বিধান অনুসরণে একই সংগে বা একই ট্রাইব্যুনালে  করা যাইবে ।
8. In view of the above provision of Section 27 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 we find that the petition of complaint was filed by the complainant opposite party along with affidavit sworn by her stating that having failed to lodged an FIR with the local police station she has filed the petition of complaint on the basis of which learned Judge of the Tribunal sent the matter for inquiry to a Judicial Magistrate who after completing inquiry submitted his report stating that primafacie  case has been made out against the accused petitioner. Learned Judge of the Tribunal accepting this report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 11 (ga) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 against the accused petitioner.
9. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the accused petitioner that though second part of Sections 27(1) l(Kha)(Ka) was complied with regarding primafacie case has been made out against the accused petitioner, but it was not at all mentioned by the Inquiry Officer in his report that having failed to lodge on FIR the complainant filed the complaint petition. The complainant filed the case with an affidavit stating that having failed to lodge an FIR with local police station she had no other way except filing the petition of complaint as per Section  27(1)(lka) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. If the Officer-In-Charge of the local police station had received the First Information Report of the occurrence, the complainant opposite party would not have filed the complaint petition to the learned Judge of the Tribunal for initiating a case against the accused petitioner.
10. Moreover, when she filed the petition of complaint by swearing affidavit stating that having failed to lodge an FIR with the local police  station in relation to the offence of the case question of non compliance of 1st part  of Sections 27(1)(lKha)(Kha) does not arise. Apparently it transpires that sections 27(1)(1Kha)(Kha)  the consequential effect of Sections 27 (1) (1Kha)(Ka) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. On a plain reading of Sections 27(I)(lKha)(Kha) of Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain. 2000, it is manifested that learned Judge of the Tribuunal  will reject the complaint petition if the complainant cannot prove that he/she failed to  lodge  an FIR or that no prima facie evidence is found in support of the allegations brough against the accused person. But in this case, after making judicial inquiry it was reported by the local Magistrate of the 1st class that prima facie case has been made out against the accused petitioner, Learned Judge of the Tribunal could have rejected the complaint petition if any one of the two grounds had not been complied with as per above provision of law. So, the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Police Officer  denied to receive the case of the petitioner was not mentioned in the inquiry report is not opinion we have given above . Moreover, an affidavit was also sworn by the complainant opposite party stating that having failed to lodge an FIR, she had filed the instant petition of complaint. It may be recorded here that the learned Judge of the Tribunal can take cognizance of any offence in the interest of justice even if no such recommendation is made after inquiry for proceeding with a case in accordance with the provision of Section 27 (1)(1ga) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000. In such a situation, relying on some strategic grounds we cannot repulse an oppressed woman from the door of the court at this initial stage of the proceedings without giving her a chance for getting redress.
11. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this Rule.
12. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged.
13. The order of stay judgment be sent down to the learned judge of the concerned Tribunal for information and necessary action.

More News For this Category

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

(From previous issue) :21. In Sekandar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Customs Excise and VAT reported in 63 DLR 272 while resolving the issue as to issuing demand notice

Land-locked Property

Appellate Division : (Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J     Md Imman Ali  J     AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury J Anowara……………………….………….Appellants               vsAbdul Rab Hawlader and another…………………......................RespondentsJudgment August 5th, 2015 Easement Act

Aggrieved Can Appeal Against Judgment By 90 Days

High Court Division :(Special Statutory Jurisdiction) Borhanuddin J Sardar Md Rashed Jahangir J Mohammad Hanif………..…….Appellant           vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate TribunalDhaka, and others………..…Respondents    Judgment     November 20th

Failure of Repayment

(From previous issue) :8. Subsequently, the names of the petitioners were classified in the lists of CIB and the petitioners challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 7161-62 of 2017 &

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J SM Maniruzzaman J BRAC Bank Limited ... ................. Petitioner……………………………VS National Board of Revenue and others…….………Respondents Judgment November 7th, 2018 Constitution of

Change in Waqf Management

(From previous issue) 19. The one and only core ground taken by the writ petitioner is that the inquiry officer (respondent No.4) without notifying the petitioner conducted the alleged

Failure of Repayment

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Mohammad Ali J Nassa Tipei Spinners Limited and others .............Petitioners                    vs     Judgment February 26th, 2019 Bangladesh 

Code Of Criminal Procedure

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) ANM Bashir Ullah   J Mustafa Zaman Islam J  Sumon Ahmed (Md) alias Sumon-----------Accused-Petitioner             vs State--------Respondent Judgment July 24th, 2018     Code of

Change in Waqf Management

High Court Division : (Special Original Jurisdiction) Moyeenul Islam  Chowdhury J Md Ashraful Kamal J Habib Ahmed Shukur     Morshed……………Petitioner         vs  Waqf Administrator Bangladesh and others……………. Respondents JudgmentSeptember

Sale And Distribution Of Proceeds

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)Quazi Reza-ul Hoque JMohammad Ullah JAbdul Hai Munshi...................Petitioner vsDeputy General Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, Dhaka and 3 (three) others. Opposite- Parties Code of Civil