Patna High Court
Amrit Kaur vs Smt. Indrajit Kaur on 19 December, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ789
ORDER Uday Sinha, J.
1. This is an application for quashing the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj dated 14-7-1983, by which he took cognizance of the offence's Under Sections 494, 420, 409 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate issued procees against all the fourteen accused mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner's name figures at serial No. 14 of the complaint.
2. In the complaint filed by the opposite party it was alleged by her that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Sardar Satnam Singh and during the subsistence of the marriage Sardar Satnam Singh married the petitioner. Sardar Satnam Singh and the petitioner thus committed offences Under Section 494 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code as alleged. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, having taken cognizance the present petitioner has moved this court for quashing the cognizance.
3. The only ground advanced in this application for quashing the order is that the learned Magistrate at Gopalganj had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence which had been committed at Pratapgarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The averment of the petitioner is that she was residing at Pratapgar and, therefore, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to issue processes, against the petitioner.
4. The submission is entirely fallacious. Section 182(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that any offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code may be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the wife of the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence. We have, therefore, to see whether there is any averment in the complaint that the complainant had taken up permanent residence at Thawe in the district of Gopalganj. In paragraph 7 of the complaint, it has been stated that Sardar Satnam Singh left the complaint at village Thawe with the assurance that he would take her with himself after he had settled down into new business. By that assurance Sardar Satnam Singh left the complainant at her father's place at Thawe. In the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 11 it has been categorically stated that the complainant resident with her parents within the jurisdiction of Gopalganj Magistrate.
5. The petitioner seems to have relied upon the provisions of Section 182/(2) of the Code which lays down that any offence Under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code may be enquired 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. True it is, that those are also the factors determining jurisdiction but we cannot loose sight of the last clause which lays down that cognizance may be taken by the court where the first wife had taken up permanent residence. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner. The application must, therefore, fail.
6. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this application. It is dismissed accordingly.