P NAGALAKSHMI Vs. K PREMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) The petitioners herein numbering 5 along with others in all about 12 are facing the charges of bigamy punishable under Section 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 sojourn, 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.

(3.) On a consideration of the legal aspects as provided under Section 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 holdingthat he has got every jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint for the trial of the offence under Section 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.