IMPORTANT POINT
Normal rule is that offence should be tried at a place where if has been committed but in certain circumstances case can be tried even at some other place.

ORDER

R.R.K. Trivedi, J.,- Heard counsel for the applicants.

This revision has been filed against order dated 24th May, 1994 by which applicants have been summoned in criminal case no. 464 of 1993 under section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as second marriage has taken place in district Bhind which lies in the State of Madhya Pradesh, cognizance of the offence could be taken only by the court in district Bhind. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants in Section 177 Cr. P.C.

3. I have perused section 177 Cr. P.C. which reads that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The word 'ordinarily' is of significance in Section 177 Cr. P.C. It says that normal rule is that it should be tried at the same place where the offence has been committed, but in certain circumstances the case can be tried even at some other place. It is not disputed that in the present case offence has been committed against a married woman i.e. complainant, living in district Etawah. Under Section 198 (1) (c) Cr. P.C. person aggrieved is wife by an offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C. She can legally file complaint at the place of her residence. If the otherwise view is taken, it shall cause great hardship as she may not be able to prosecute the complaint at the place of actual marriage and the unscrupulous husband cannot be allowed to defeat her legal rights to file complaint at the place of her normal residence. Husband may in order to oust jurisdiction of the Court may perform the marriage at the far away place, and then came back to the place where he used to reside with his previous wife. Facts of the present case as mentioned in-paragraphs No.4 to 7 of the complaint are very revealing. Applicant No.1 is resident of district Firozabad. The bride with whom applicant No.1 is alleged to have been married second time is also resident of district Etawah. But the marriage was performed at Bhind. After marriage applicant No: 1 is residing in Firozabad with his second wife. It is well established role that the procedural law should be interpreted in the manner so as to promote the cause of justice and not in the manner it may defeat it. The place of trial in such circumstances can be-in district Etawah where wife is residing. The legal position after reading Section 177 together with Section 198 Cr. P.C. comes out to be that the order of summoning the applicant does not suffer from any error of law. In any case in view of the language used in Section 177 Cr. P.C., the trial of offence in district Etawah will not be vitiated.

The revision has no force and is, accordingly, rejected.

Revision dismissed.