P. Nagalakshmi and others vs Dr. K. Premavathi and others

N. Arumugham, J.—The challenge in this revision is against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. VII,

Coimbatore made in Crl.M.P. No. 571 of 1995 in C.C. No. 672 of 1994 dated 2-5-1995, for its want of legality and propriety.

The petitioners herein numbering 5 along with others in all about 12 are facing the charges of bigamy punishable u/s 494 read with S. 109 of the

Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the first petitioner married the second respondent, the husband of Dr. Premavathi, the first respondent

herein, who was already married to the said person. It has been alleged further that the first respondent was a Doctor and the second respondent

was an Engineer by profession and that in view of certain bickerings that erupted in connection with the demand of dowry their marital life became

strained but however, during the said so journ, a female child was born to them and at the last, it was stated that the said first wife Dr. Premavathi

with her minor child was alleged to have been driven away from the custody of her husband from Erode and consequently, they took asylum and

residence at Podanur within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore. Claiming maintenance for the minor child, the mother

as guardian appears to have filed a petition u/s 125, Cr.P.C. against her husband before the Court below claiming maintenance of a sum of Rs.

500/- per month, which is pending. In the petition aforementioned itself, it is alleged that for the offence of bigamy, against her husband appropriate

proceedings was being contemplated for the offence under S. 494, I.P.C. Subsequently, a private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. against the

petitioners and others numbering 12 in all was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. VII, Coimbatore for the offence of bigamy

punishable u/s 494 read with 109, I.P.C. and that was taken to the file in C.C. No. 672 of 1994 for the purpose of trial. On entering appearance

by the accused, a petition u/s 182(2), Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein stating that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the

said complaint for the reasoning that the complainant Dr. Premavathi since the date of her marriage with her husband was all along living at Erode

and last resided at Erode within the jurisdiction of the Court at Erode and had left Erode long before the alleged offence of bigamy was committed.

The said petition was resisted on the same provision of law by and on behalf of the complainant/first respondent herein through the Bar.

On a consideration of the legal aspects as provided u/s 182(2), Cr.P.C. in the context of the factual aspects referred to in the petition as well as

the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition by holding that he has got every jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint

for the trial of the offence u/s 494 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused as the complainant is living for a quite long

time at Podanur, within the jurisdiction of that Court and thereby passed the impugned order. It is this order which is being challenged by and on

behalf of few accused in this revision, questioning its legality and propriety.

Assailing the impugned order for its legality, propriety, I have heard Mr. V. Nicholas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, who dwelt

his attack mainly upon clause (2) of Section 182, Cr.P.C., which reads as follows :

Any offence punishable u/s 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction

the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or the wife by the first marriage, has taken up

permanent residence after the commission of the offence.

A casual reading of the above section of law, which the learned Counsel only relied on would provide three circumstances for the purpose of

conferring jurisdiction to the Court, for a Court to entertain a complaint to try the offences punishable under Sections 494 or 495 of the Indian

Penal Code, which are firstly, the case may be tried or inquired into by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed; or

secondly, by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage; or thirdly by a Court

within whose local jurisdiction the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence. It is noticed that

the statute provides the above three ingredients in order to confer the jurisdiction to a Court to try an offence under Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C.

and except these, no other ground is possible to confer jurisdiction on a Court of Law. If the averments made in the complaint filed u/s 200,

Cr.P.C. and the observations made by the Court below is looked into, it is noticed that after the marriage of the complainant with her husband held

at Podanur, both resided at Erode Town in Periyar District and during the said period a female child was born to them and that subsequently, the

complainant as well as her minor child had left Erode for Podanur town, near Coimbatore and are living all along in the said place permanently,

where, it was stated, that one Magudapathy came and informed the complainant of the commission of the offence of bigamy by her husband on

15-10-1994 at Erode. From the above, it is made clear that the first two ingredients confer the jurisdiction to the Court only at Erode. But the third

ground comes to the rescue of the first respondent herein. Each ground provided in the above section of law are mutually exclusive and not to be

seen as interdependent or substitute for each other. If this is so, the third ingredient is a separate one and totally exclusive, may be made always

available to the complainant, the rejected wife. In the private complaint itself it has been categorically averred that the complaint filed for the

offence of bigamy comes within the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Coimbatore in view of Section 182(2), Cr.P.C.

In the context of the above position of law, I am totally unable to persuade myself to agree with the contentions raised by Mr. V. Nicholas,

learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the third ingredient referred to above, the words, ""has taken up permanent residence after the

commission of the offence"" would only mean that after the commission of the offence. It is not at all possible to give a restricted meaning, to isolate

such words only found referred in the above section of law in preference to the other phraseology adopted in the above section. Therefore, I am

entirely in disagreement with his contention.

In Perumal Pillai v. M. Sivakami, 1992 MLW (Cri) 159 a learned single Judge of this Court while dealing with the similar scope of the law has

observed as follows :

(ii) The second contention has to be rejected. Since bigamy was conceived as an offence against the institution of marriage in which the society is

concerned, it was found necessary that practical opportunity to bring offenders before the Courts should not be denied by restricting the venue to

local areas, where the bigamous marriage was actually performed. In that view, originally jurisdiction was extended to the place where the offender

last resided with his or her lawfully married spouse. In 1978, a further amendment was felt necessary to enable complaint by a woman relating to

an offence of bigamy, to be made at the place of permanent residence after the commission of the offence, instead of at the place where she last

resided with her husband. While looking into the jurisdiction sought to be conferred under S. 182(2), Cr.P.C. in respect of matrimonial offences,

we have to take into consideration similar provisions made in S. 126, Cr.P.C. to facilitate the neglected wife, preferring a petition u/s 125, Cr.P.C.

at the place where she resides. The conferment of jurisdiction for offences under Ss. 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code and for preferring

petitions under S. 125, Cr.P.C., has a social purpose behind it and the object is apparently that the aggrieved wife should not be forced to run

from pillar to post to prosecute a bigamist husband and his associates, or face untold suffering, in the matter of claiming maintenance. The

provisions of S. 182(2), Cr.P.C. will have to receive liberal interpretation, if the object for which this section was introduced has to be given its due

meaning. The question is not really whether the wife of the first marriage has taken up permanent residence away from her husband technically

either before or after the commission of the offence. The crux of the matter appears to be that subsequent to the commission of the offence she

must have a permanent residence within the jurisdiction of the particular Court, where she chooses to initiate prosecution.

In the light of the above ratio, having considered the very effort taken by Mr. V. Nicholas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the

facts of the instant case, I am fully constrained to hold that this revision lacks merits and accordingly it has to be dismissed. It was represented at

this stage that the trial of the case has been stayed already in view of the pendency of this revision. This is a clear case where a maintenance

petition u/s 125, Cr.P.C. is pending and a private complaint is also kept pending. The same have to be expedited in view of the disposal of this

revision and disposed of in accordance with law as early as possible.

In the result, for all the reasonings given above, the revision fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, No. VII, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P. No. 571 of 1996 in C.C. No. 672 of 1994 on 2-5-1995 is sustained and confirmed. In the light of

the above observation, learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial of the cases and dispose them as expeditiously as possible.

Petition dismissed.