IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

  Present

Mr. Justice Md. Salim

   And

Mr. Justice Shahed Nuruddin

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.19526 OF 2014

Mosaraf Hossain

............Accused-Petitioner. -VERSUS-

The State and another

……..... Opposite Parties.

Mr. M. Sarwar Hossain, Advocate

............ For the petitioner. Mr. M. Masud Rana, Advocate

                              …...... For the opposite party No.2.

Ms. Shamima Sultana, DAG

..............For the State.

Heard on 15.05.2024, 23,05,2024, 29.05.2024 and 21.08.2024

Judgment on 22.08.2024.

MD. SALIM, J:

By this Rule, the opposite parties were asked to show cause as to why the proceeding of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Case No.347 of  2010  arising  out  of  G  R  No.  431  of  2010  corresponding  to Mohammadpur Police Station Case No. 12 dated 05.08.2010 under Section 10/11(Ga)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, now pending before the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.4, Dhaka should not be quashed and or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Material facts, in a nutshell, for disposal of the Rule are that the accused petitioner is the complainant's husband. During their wedlock, two sons were blessed. After marriage, her husband, in various ways, received a dowry of taka of one and a half crore from the victim and her father. The accused petitioner, with his relatives, grabbed the earlier amount and started torturing her again on demand of a dowry of Tk.2 crores. After some days, the accused petitioner got married another women and living in his house, on 2.4.2010 at about 9.30 p.m., the victim, her younger brother Nur Hossain Hira and sister Rajeda Begum went to the house of the accused petitioner. The relatives of the accused petitioner  called  her  inside  their  home, but  they  did  not  allow  her brother and sister to enter. At one stage of the conversation, the accused persons,  without  being  provoked,  became  tempered.  Then,  accused Musharraf Hossain took her inside his bedroom and locked the door. All of a sudden, the accused attacked her and outraged her modesty, and  also  injured  her.  Hearing  her  hue  and  cry,  her  accompanies proceeded forward and compelled the accused persons to open the door and rescue her. After that, they took the complainant to Dhaka Medical College Hospital, and after getting treatment there, she filed the instant case.

The  police  investigated  the  case  and,  after  investigation, submitted a final report on 03.10.2010 in favor of the accused petitioner and  others  and  also  recommended  to  draw  proceedings  against  the complainant-victim  under  section  17  of  the  Nari-O-Shishu  Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000.

Being  aggrieved  against  the  final  report  on  13.02.2011,  the complainant filed a Naraji Petition before the learned Judge, Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No. 4, Dhaka, who allowed the Naraji petition  in  part  and  took  cognizance  against  the  accused  petitioner under section 10 (Kha) and 11(Kha)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain,2000.

The petitioner surrendered before the learned Judge, Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.4, Dhaka, and obtained bail. On 09.01.2012, the learned Judge, Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.4,  Dhaka, framed  the charge against the accused  petitioner and others under sections 10 and 11(G)/30 of the Nari-O-Shishu NIrjatan Daman Ain, 2000 and fix the date for the examination of the witnesses.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  charge  framing  order,  the  accused petitioner filed this application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, obtained the Rule and order of stay.

Mr. M. Sarwar Hossain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  accused  petitioner,  submits  that  after  six  years  of  divorce, this victim complainant lodged the FIR against the accused petitioner and after submission of the final report the victim complainant filed a naraji petition; that the facts of the case as alleged by the victim-complainant are so preposterous that even admitted fats no case stands against the accused petitioner, that the Tribunal without any inquiry under section 27(1)(Ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain allowed the Naraji Petition took cognizance of the case is an abuse of the process of the Court.

On  the  contrary,  Ms.  Shamima  Sultana,  the  learned  Deputy Attorney  General  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  State,  opposes  the contention  so  made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  and submits that there is a specific allegation against him and the learned Judge of the Tribunal considering the whole materials on record rightly framed the charge against the accused petitioner.

We  have  anxiously  considered  the  submissions  made  by  the learned advocates for both parties and perused the related documents annexed to the application and other recorded materials. To substantiate the submissions advanced by the Bar, the relevant law may be quoted as follows;- 

Section 27 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000( as amended in 2003) provided that-

“২৭। (১) সাব-ই েপ র পদমযা  দার  wb‡¤œ  নেহন এমন  কান পুিল শ কমকত া বা এতদেুেশ   সরকােরর িনকট হইেত সাধারণ বা িবেশষ আেদশ  ারা

মত া    কান ব ি র িলিখত িরেপাট ব িতেরেক  কান  াইবু নাল  কান অপরাধ

িবচারাথ   হণ কিরেবন না।

(১ক)  কান অিভেযাগকারী উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন  কান পুিল শ কমকত ােক বা  মত া  ব ি েক  কান অপরােধর অিভেযাগ  হণ কিরবার জন  অনুের াক ধিরয়া ব থ হইয়ােছন মেম হলফনামা সহকাের  াইবু নােলর িনকট অিভেযাগ দািখল কিরেল  াইবু নাল অিভেযাগকারীেক পরী া কিরয়া,-

(ক) স     হইেল অিভেযাগ   অনু  সােনর (inquiry) জন    কান ম ািজে ট িকংবা অন    কান ব ি েক িনেদ শ  দান কিরেবন এবং অনু  সােনর জন  িনেদ শ া  ব ি  অিভেযাগ  অনসু ান কিরয়া সাত কায িদবেসর মেধ    াইবু নােলর

িনকট িরেপাট   দান কিরেবন;

(খ) স    না হইেল অিভেযাগ  সরাসির নাকচ কিরেবন।

(১খ) উপ-ধারা (১ক) এর অধীন িরেপাট   াি র পর  কান  াইবু নাল যিদ এই মেম স    হয়  য,-

(ক) অিভেযাগক ী উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন  কান পুিল শকমকত ােক বা

মত া  ব ি েক  কান অপরােধর অিভেযাগ  হণ কিরবার জন  অনুেরাধ কির য়া ব থ হইয়ােছন এবং অিভেযােগর সমথে  ন  াথিমক সা      মাণ আেছ  সই    ে 

াইবু নাল উ  িরেপাট ও অিভেযা গর িভি েত অপরাধ  িবচারাথ   হণ কিরেবন;

(খ) অিভেযাগক রী উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন  কান পুিল শকমকত ােক বা

মত া  ব ি েক  কান অপরােধর অিভেযাগ  হণ কিরবার জন  অনুের াধকিরয়া ব থ হইয়ােছন মেম    মাণ পাওয়া যায় নাই িকংবা অিভেযােগর সমথে  ন  কান  াথিমক

সা      মাণ পাওয়া যায় নাই  সই    ে    াইবু নাল অিভেযাগ  নাকচ কিরেবন।

(১গ) উপ-ধারা (১) এবং (১ক) এর অধীন  া  িরেপােট   কান ব ি র
িবরু   েঅপরাধ সংঘটেনর অিভেযাগ বা ততস  েক কায ম  হেণর সুপাির ন শা থাকা

সে ও  াইবু নাল, যথাযথ এবং ন ায়িবচােরর খােথ   েয়াজনীয় মেন কিরেল, কারণ উে খপূক ব উ  ব ি র ব াপাের সংি    অপরাধ িবচারাথ   হণ কিরেত পািরেবন।]

(২)  য  াইবু নােলর এখিতয়ারাধীন এলাকায়  কান অপরাধ বা উহার  কান অংশ সংঘ ত হইয়ােছ অথবা  যখােন অপরাধীেক বা, একািধক অপরাধীর    ে ,

তাহােদর  য  কান একজনেক পাওয়া িগয়ােছ,  সই  ান বা  াইবু নােলর এখিতয়ারাধীন,  সই  াইবু নােল অপরাধ  িবচারাথ   হেণর জন  িরেপাট বা অিভেযাগ  পশ করা যাইেব

এবং  সই  াইবু নাল অপরাধ র িবচার কিরেব।

(৩) যিদ এই আইেনর অধীন  কান অপরােধর সিহত অন    কান অপরাধ এমনভােব জিড়ত থােক  য, ন ায়িবচােরর খােথ উভয় অপরােধর িবচার একই সংেগ বা একই মামলায় করা  েয়াজন, তাহা হইেল উ  অন  অপরাধ র িবচার এই আইেনর অধীন অপরােধর সিহত এই আইেনর িবধান অনুসর েএ ণকই সংেগ বা একই  াইবু নােল

করা যাইেব।”

It  manifests  that  a  Nari-O-Shishu  Nirjatan  Daman  Tribunal cannot take cognizance on its own without having an inquiry report submitted by a Magistrate or someone who is entrusted by the Tribunal within seven days.

The  case  before us  manifests  that  the  Tribunal  did  not  take cognizance after submitting the final report by the police. Instead, the Tribunal took cognizance of the instant case based on a Naraji Petition without any inquiry Report and the same is without jurisdiction as per the provision so enumerated in Section 27(1Ka) and (Ka). This view find  support  from  the  case  of  Babu  Miah  Vs  State,  reported 18BLC(HCD)598 held-

When a Naraji Petition is filed by the aggrieved prson the tribunal after examination ought to have sent the matter for further inquiry as per section 27(1ka) and  (ka) of the Nari-O-Shishu  Nirjatan Daman Ain,2000 because by now it is settled that Naraji Petition is a fresh complaint.

 The established principle of the law is that a Naraji Petition is treated as a fresh complaint. On the other hand, in the instant case, the Tribunal did not take cognizance of the offense based on the police report, nor did it direct further investigation rather, the Tribunal took cognizance of the offense without examining the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the Naraji Petition is without jurisdiction and abuse of of the process of the Court.

This view find support from the case of Md. Saiful Islam and others Vs. The State and another reported in 15 MLR(HCD)420 held-

The Tribunal did not take cognizance offence on the  basis  of   police  report,  nor  it  directed  for further  investigation  on  the  basis  of  Naraji Petition under section 202 of the code of criminal procedure as such the taking cognizance of offence on the basis of naraji petition without examining the  complainant  under  section  200  is  without jurisdiction, unlawful and abuse of the processes of the court.

Further, it manifests from Annexure -E- a Divorce Certificate, Annexure- E-1 a Registered Kabinnama of the complainant and one Mr.  Shamsher  Alam,  and  Annexure  -B-  the  Final  Report  that  the victim-complainant party married the accused petitioner on 14.08.1982 and  divorced  the  accused  petitioner  on  22.09.1994.  After  that,  she married  another  one,  namely  Mr.  Shamser  Alam,  on  08.12.1994. Therefore, it transpires that the marriage did not subsist between the accused petitioner and the victim-opposite party at the date and time of the alleged offense. Consequently, we are of the view that since, at the time  of  occurrence,  the  marriage  was  not  subsisting  between  the accused  petitioner  and  the  complainant-victim,  the  victim  was  not present at the house of his ex-husband at the time of the occurrence. Therefore,  the  allegation  brought  against  the  accused  petitioner  is nothing but an abuse of the court process.

This view find support from the case of The State Vs. Md. Rofizal Haque reported in 6 ALR(AD)90 held-

“It is evident from the materials on record that the incident of assault on the complainant is alleged to have occurred on 06.02.2009, whereas the accused husband claims to have divorced the complainant on 19.01.2009. The High Court Division observed that since the divorce took place earlier, the victim was not supposed to be present in the house of her husband after 19.01.2009”.

Considering  the  above  facts  and  circumstances,  we  find substance  in  the  submission  made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioner, and the Rule has succeeded. 

Resultantly, the Rule is made absolute.

Let the proceedings of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan  Daman Case No.347  of  2010  under  Section  11(Ga)/30/10  of  the  Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, now pending before the learned Judge Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.4, Dhaka be quashed.

The office is directed to communicate the judgment at once.  SHAHED NURUDDIN, J.

I agree

Rakib/ABO