Court within whose jurisdiction offender resided last, complaint way be filed before the said court.

Third accused in C.C. No. 162 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C. Nos. 509 of 1995 and 540 of 1995. The respondent in each of the revisions is the complainant in that case before the lower Court. The parties in this revision are referred to in the rank in which they are described before the lower Court. The complainant filed a private complaint against seven accused alleging offences under Sections 494 and 109 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant's sister was married to the first accused on 14-3-1980 at Rajeswari Kalyana Mandapam at Dr. Radhikrishnan Salai, Madras, according to the rites of Hindu Religion to which the marrying spouses belonged. Thereafter, the marriage was registered in the office of the Registrar of Marriage, Saidapet, Madras 35. After the marriage, the first accused resided with his wife for 1-1/2 years at No. 14, Balfour Road, Kellys, Madras 10. In 1981, the first accused went to England to prosecute his further studies and from there he went to Jamaica. The wife of the first accused also joined him at Jamaica, where she gave birth to a female child. During the year 1987, the complainant's brother, stated to be residing at Australia, sponsored the wife of the first accused and therefore, the first accused, his wife and the child went to Australia. In the year 1992, the first accused became intimate with a Malaysian woman and slowly the first accused started to show a dislike towards his wife. In July, 1992, the first accused deserted his wife and daughter and started to live with the Malaysian woman at Australia. On 7-11-1994, the first accused is stated to have married the second accused and that marriage was solemnized at Sri Pateeswaran Temple at Perur, Coimbatore Taluk. The marriage was also registered in the office of the Joint Registrar-I, Raja Street, Coimbatore. In the month of November, 1995, the first accused had come to Madras and stayed with his brother and mother, accused 3 and 4 respectively at No. 17, Ponnappa Road, Off. Damodara Murthy Road, Kilpauk, Madras, 10. The rest of the facts are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the revisions

2. This complaint was taken on file and process was issued to the accused. The third accused filed Crl.M.P. No. 2252 of 1995 under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case on the ground that the marriage has taken place at Coimbatore. According to him, there are no averments in the complaint to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrate. The third accused along with accused 4 to 7 filed another application in Crl.M.P. No. 2253 of 1995 under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying the Court to discharge them on the ground that there are no prima facie materials. In this petition, it is stated that the wife of the first accused had obtained the citizenship of Australia and that there are proceedings in the Family Court at Australia regarding divorce between the first accused and his wife. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the applications passed two separate orders each dated 17-7-1995 in and by which he rejected both the petitions. Crl.R.C. No. 509 of 1995 is against the order in Crl.M.P. No. 2252 of 1995 (Jurisdiction issue) and Crl.R.C. 540 of 1995 is against the order in Crl.M.P. No. 2253 of 1995 (lack of prima lace material issue)

3. I heard Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both the cases and Mr. V. Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of the cases

4. After hearing both the counsel, I am of the opinion that the question of deciding Crl.R.C. No. 540 of 1995 on merits would depend upon the outcome of the result in Crl.R.C. No. 509 of 1995, since it goes into the jurisdiction issue. If it is found that the Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction to take the complaint on his file, th