GANESH HARSINGH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Chatterji, Advocate for the applicants and Shri Tambe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No. 2.

(2.) PRESENT respondent No. 1, who claims to be first wife of petitioner, filed Regular Criminal Case No. 16 of 1999 against present petitioner and 13 others for an offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. After verification, by recording statement of the wife, learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process by an order dated 28-1-1999. By an application Exhibit 59, accused approached the trial Court that the complaint may be returned to the complainant for presentation to the competent Court under section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the alleged incident (second marriage of the respondent No. 1) was alleged to have taken place at Borgaon, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad, whereas the complaint is filed at Kalamnuri and the place of offence is not within the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri. The application was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 21-7-2000. It appears that husband challenged this order by Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2000 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. By observing that the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter, in the light of section 182 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri. The orders dated 21-7-2000 by the learned Magistrate and dated 8-2-2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are being impugned by the present application.

(3.) SHRI Chatterji arguing for the applicants has pressed into service the issue of jurisdiction. He has pointed out that there is a time gap of nearly two years between the separation of complainant from the present petitioner and present petitioner solemnizing alleged second marriage. According to him, since the second marriage was not the cause for wife to separate from the husband and for taking permanent residence to some other place than the place where she last cohabited with the husband, the place, where she was residing much before the second marriage of husband will not confer jurisdiction upon the Court wherein she so resides.