( 1 ) THE facts which led to the filing of this application of criminal revision are as follows.

( 2 ) SMT. Claira Alexander is the married wife of Sri M. H. Alexander. They were married several years ago and they were also parents of some children. On 19-8-1957 Smt. Claira Alexander filed a complaint under Section 494. P. C. against her husband and Smt. Karuna Kumari alleging that they entered into a bigamous marriage. This complaint was filed in the court of a Judicial Officer at Lucknow. The complaint did not disclose as to when and where the bigamous marriage was performed. Smt. Claira Alexander was examined on 26-8-1957 under Section 200 Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate and even in this statement she gave no information about the date and the place where this alleged bigamous marriage was performed. It is therefore surprising how this complaint was entertained at all. Courts entertain complaints when they are satisfied not that an offence has been committed but that an offence has been committed within their jurisdiction. It is necessary for a court to satisfy itself on this point before entertaining a complaint. It appears that this was not done by the Magistrate.

( 3 ) AFTER the complaint was entertained and the accused were summoned they submitted an application on 9-9-57 in which they prayed that the complainant should be asked to disclose the date and the place where this bigamous marriage was performed according to her. This application was curiously rejected by the Magistrate.

( 4 ) THE prosecutrix was examined as a witness in the case on 6-11-1957. In her statement she stated that she had heard rumours since a long time about the infidelity of her husband and they were confirmed when she found that Smt. Karuna Kumari was admitted to a Maternity Hospital and gave birth to a child. It may be mentioned that Smt. Karuna Kumari was a friend of the complainant. In her cross examination which was held on 12-11-1957 she for the first time suggested that a second bigamous marriage between the two accused was performed in January 1956. It was alleged that this marriage was performed according to Vedic rites in Mohalla Baisi-ki-masjid at the house of Sri Nickolson Mathews who is a brother-in-law of the complainant.

( 5 ) IN the course of cross examination on 12-11-1957 the complainant stated for the first time that a second bigamous marriage was performed at Allahabad between the two accused on 9-1-1956 according to Arya Samaj rites. The witnesses in support of the marriage at Lucknow were then examined and on 9-12-1957 the Magistrate framed a charge under section 494. P. C. against both the accused. In this charge the Magistrate did not mention the place where it was alleged that the bigamous marriage was performed. He only mentioned that the marriage was performed in January 1956. He examined the accused the same day before framing the charge and in the questions put to the accused he mentioned that this marriage was alleged to have been performed at Lucknow.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to the framing of the charge the complainant made another application on 23-12-1957 praying that the Allahabad witnesses be called so that the marriage at Allahabad be proved. This application was rejected by the Magistrate.

( 7 ) THE complainant felt aggrieved by this rejection of her prayer and she went up to the Court of session praying that the order of the Magistrate be set aside the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the order of the Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the complainant was incorrect as the Magistrate ignored the provisions of Section 179 Cr. P. C. The Sessions Judge, however, did not make a reference to this Court but after rejecting the revisional application of the complainant he incorporated in his order a direction that the complainant should make a fresh prayer before the Magistrate and in view of Section 179 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate would allow it.

( 8 ) IT is against this order that Sri Alexander and Karu