1. A complaint was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 alleging offences u/s 494/109 R.P.C. on 31.5.1982 in the court of chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. Through the medium of this application the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of the said case.

2. A perusal of the complaint shows that in para No. 4, it has been alleged that the petitioner who was already married to respondent No. 1 contrated another marriage with one Indu Bala during the life time of respondent No. 1 at Mohalla Kumaran Mukarian City. In para 5 of the complaint it is again stated that respondents 2 to 4 abetted the commission of the offence and encouraged the petitioner to marry Indu Bala at Mohalla Kumaran Mukerian city in Punjab.

3. Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel submits that under Sec. 177 Cr. P. C every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed and that since the offence u/s 494 R.P.C., was allegedly committed within the jurisdiction of the court at Mukerian in Punjab, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, has no jurisdiction to issue process against the petitioner or proceed with the complaint There appears to be force in this submission.

4. Section 177 Cr. P. C. lays down the general principles as regards the jurisdiction of the court to try various offences. The expression Ordinarily" occurring in Sec. 177 Cr, P. C. means "except where otherwise provided in the Code." The state legislature is indeed competent to provide for the trial of offences created by its statute, otherwise than as prescribed under Sec. 177 Cr. P. C. but it must clearly appear from the relevant provisions of the statute, that a departure from the general principle prescribed by Sec. 177 Cr. P. C, is intended. The offence, allegedly, committed by the petitioner within the meaning of Sec. 494 R. P C. was (sic) contracted a second marriage during the life time of respondent No. 1 That offence according to the complainant herself was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Mukerian in Punjab. It is, therefore, only the competent courts at Mukerian which would have the jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, as no departure has been made or intended, in the R. P. C. for the trial of an offence u/s 494 R. P. C.

5. In Vasantha Krishnaswamt V. M. S. Krishnaswami, AIR 1967 Madras 241 wherein also a similar question arose it was held that since bigamy is committed on the date of the second marriage the jurisdiction to try such an offence would be governed by Sec. 1 7 Cr. P. C. and the venue of trial would be court having jurisdiction over the place of second marriage.

6. From the aforesaid discussion, it follows that in view of the provisions of Sec. 177 Cr. P. C. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu does not have jurisdiction in the instant case.

7. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is accepted. The complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and all the proceeding emanating there from pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu are hereby quashed.

8. It is, however, clarified that the quashing of the complaint shall not be construed as any bar in case respondent No. 1 wishes to proceed against the petitioner and others in the proper forum, if so advised and if permissible by Law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document