Nand Lal vs Sudesh Kumari and Ors.

A complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 alleging offences u/s 494/U09 R. P. C. on 3 105 I98'2

in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. Through the medium of this application the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising

out of the said case.

A perusal of the complaint shows that in para No. 4, it has been alleged that the petitioner who was already married to respondent No. 1

contracted another marriage with one Indu Bala during the life time of respondent No. 1 at Mohalla Kumaran Mukarian City. In para 5 of the

complaint it is again stated that respondents 2 to 4 abetted the commission of the offence and encouraged the petitioner to marry Indu Bala at

Mohalla Kumaran Mukerian city Punjab,

Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel submits that under Sec 177 Cr. P. C. every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a

court within the local limits of 'whose jurisdiction it was committed and that since the offence u/s 494 R. P. C. was allegedly crimpled within the

jurisdiction of the court at Mukerian in Punjab, the Judicial Megistrate, Jammu, has no jurisdiction to issue process against the petitioner or

proceed with the complaint. There appears, to be force in this submission.

Section 177 Cr. P. C. lays down the general principles as regards, the jurisdiction of the court to try various offences. The expression occurring

in Sec. 177 Cr, PLC. ""except where otherwise provided in the. Code"". The state legislature is indeed competent to provide for the trial of offences

created by its statute, otherwise than as prescribed under Sec! 177 Cr. P. C. but it must appear of the statute, that a departure from the general

principle prescribed by Sec. 177 Cr. P. C. is intended. The offence, allegedly, committed by the petitioner within the meaning of Sec. 494 Right C,

was contracted a second marriage during the life time of respondent No. 1 That offence according to the complainant herself was committed within

the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Mukerian in Punjab It is, therefore, only the competent courts at Mukerian which would have jurisdiction

to proceed in the matter, no departure has been made or intended, in the R. P. C. for the trial of an offence u/s 494 R. P. C.

In Vasantha Krishnaswami Vs. M.S. Krishnaswami, AIR 1967 Madras 241 wherein also a similar, question arose it was held that since bigamy

is committed on the date, of the second marriage, the jurisdiction to try such an offence would be governed by Sec. 177 Cr. P. C. and venue of

trial would be the court having jurisdiction over the place of second marriage.

From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that in view of the provisions of Sec. 177 Cr. P. C. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu does not have

jurisdiction to the instant case.

This petition, therefore, succeeds and is accepted. The complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and all the proceeding emanating there from and

pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu are hereby quashed.

It is, however, clarified that the quashing of the complaint shall not be construed as any bar in case respondent No. 1 wishes to proceed against

the petitioner and others in the proper forum, if so advised and if permissible by law.