SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Mad) 2194

K.S.HEGDE
Kempajamma – Appellant
Versus
Venkatahanumniah – Respondent


Advocates:
C.V. Subba Rao and M. Hanumanthiah, for Petitioner.
S.V. Jagannath, for Respondent.

Order.-

This petition is directed against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Bangalore, in Crl.R.P. No. 2 of 1962, wherein he refused to interfere with the order of the trial Court directing the return of the complaint for presentation to the proper Court.

The petitioner, as complainant, filed a complaint against her husband, the respondent for bigamy, in the Court of the learned First Class Magistrate, Doddaballapur. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence complained of and the case in question was numbered as Crl.C. No. 246 of 1961. In due course, witnesses for the prosecution were examined. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the alleged offence having taken place outside his local area, he has no jurisdiction to try the case. In view of that conclusion, he returned the complaint to the complainant under section 201, Criminal Procedure Code, for presentation to the proper Court. The legality of this order is challenged in this revision petition.

Even according to the prosecution, the alleged offence was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned First Class Magistrate, Dod











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top