TEKUMALLA MUNEIAH Vs. CH BAHENURI AMMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash the order dated 21-11-1989 passed in Crl. MP No. 2610 of 1989 in C C No. 35/87 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Nellore as confirmed by the Sessions Judge Nellore by his order dated 18-1-1990 in Cr. RP (CF No. 1656/89.)

(2.) The petitioners herein challenge the order of the Court below refusing to quash the proceedings on the ground that the trial court at Nellore has no jurisdiction.

(3.) The facts of the case are : First respondent herein is the first wife of petitioner No. 1 and as the 1st petitioner married another wife she filed a complaint in the court of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class Nellore under Sec. 494 IPC for bigamy. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first respondent-wife was residing at Nellore even earlier to the alleged second marriage and therefore the Court at Nellore has no jurisdiction as per Sec. 182 (2) Cr. P. C: To decide that contention it is relevant to refer to Sec. 182 (2) Cr. P C which reads as follows: "182(2); Any offence punishable under Sec. 494 or Sec. 495 of the IPC 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 (or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the. offence) As per the above section it is clear that' the first wife can file a complaint at the place where she has taken up a permanent residence after the commission of the offence. It is clear that after the commission of the offence if the first wife takes up a permanent residence she can file a petition in the court which has got jurisdiction over the area in which she resides. Where the first wife has been residing permanently in a particular place earlier to the commission of the offence and continues to reside in that place even after the commission of the offence it can be said that she is residing in that place even after the commission of the offence. Therefore the Court of that place has got jurisdiction. Merely because the section refers to the place where the first wife takes a permanent residence after the commission of the offence it cannot be said that the wife who was. living at that place earlier to the commission of the offence and continues to do so even after the commission of the offence is hot residing at that place after the commission of the offence. The section must be interpreted in accord with the intention of the Parliament. The incorporation of the clause "or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence in the section is mainly to facilitate the first wife to file a complaint at the place where she permanently resides after the Commission of the offence. I accordingly sec no force in the submission of the learned counsel and held that the first wife who was living at a particular place earlier to the commission of the offence and continues there must be deemed to have taken permanent residence at that place after the commission of the offence in terms of section 182 (2). Cr.P.C..and that the Court. having territorial jurisdiction over that place namely Nellore in the present case can entertain the complaint. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.