PANCHANAN BHATACHARYA AND ANR. Vs. USHAMANI BHATACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the accused persons invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the cognisance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baripada, under Section 494, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ON the basis of the allegations in a complaint filed by the opposite party alleging therein that she is the legally married wife of Petitioner No. 1 and during the subsistence of marriage, said Petitioner No. 1 married for the second time, the Magistrate, took cognisance under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioners, however, assailed the said order of cognisance on the ground that the Magistrate at Baripada had no jurisdiction to take cognisance. The Petitioners had filed an application initially before the learned Magistrate and the same having been rejected they had also carried a revision to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge having rejected the same, they have approached this Court.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the wife by the first marriage in the present case has taken up Baisinga as her permanent residence. The dispute is only to the extent that she had come to Baisinga even earlier to the commission of the offence. Even accepting that to be true, in my opinion, the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction Baisinga tomes will have the jurisdiction to try the offence in question. It is to be noted that this provision conferring jurisdiction on the Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence to inquire into and try the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 495, Indian Penal Code, was not there originally and was brought into the statute book by way of amendment by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978. Originally, the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage had the jurisdiction. The amendment in question has been brought in with the avowed object to save the first wife from unnecessary harassment of prosecuting her remedies at a place where she no longer resides or at some unknown place where the offence is committed. That is why the jurisdiction has been conferred on the Magistrate where the first wife has taken up permanent residence. Even in a case where the first wife has taken a particular place as her permanent residence even prior to the commission of the offence must also be held to have taken up that permanent residence or, in other words, has continued to take up the permanent residence at that place. In this view of the matter, the Magistrate at Baripada who has the jurisdiction over Baisinga where the first wife has taken up residence must be held to have the jurisdiction to try the offence in question. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in this application, which is, therefore, dismissed. The Magistrate is directed to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible since there has been delay in the matter. The records may be sent back immediately.