ORDER

Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - The learned Sessions Judge, Ballia, has made the instant reference to this Court. He has recommended that the order of the learned magistrate summoning the six accused persons to stand their trial be quashed and the learned magistrate be directed to return the complaint to the complainant as provided by Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The trial magistrate passed an order u/s 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure summoning the Petitioners to stand their trial u/s 494 of the IPC.

3. On 22-5-1965 Smt. Usha Devi, opposite party, filed a complaint u/s 494/112 of the IPC, against the Applicants in which she alleged that she was married to accused Madan Mohan Srivastava at Ballia on 10-6-1963. Soon after the marriage she was illtreated and sent back to her father. Her ornaments were detained. The father of Smt. Usha Devi had a talk about the matter with the accused Ram Chander and accused Sri Krishna Lal who were the brothers of accused Madan Mohan Srivastava, the husband of the complainant. They, however, expressed their inability to take her back and eventually Madan Mohan Srivastava accused, in collusion with accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, married Smt. Sobha Rani, accused No. 2, at Lucknow on 30-8-1964. According to her Madan Mohan Srivastava had committed the offence of bigamy and the other five accused were guilty of abetment.

4. The learned magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and two witnesses u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after doing that he passed the order on 8-6-1965, which is sought to be revised.

5. Soon, therefore, Sri Kishan Lal Srivastava, the Petitioner, who has been living at Ballia filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge against the order of the learned magistrate on the ground that the learned magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. His petition in revision was, however, summarily rejected on 18-6-1965, by the learned Sessions Judge and in the order rejecting that revision petition it was said, that the plea of jurisdiction should first be taken in the court of the magistrate. Thereafter, on 22-6-1966, Sri Krishna Lal moved an application in the court of the learned magistrate disputing his jurisdiction to try the case. But it appears that no order was passed on that application. The magistrate then gave direction that the complainant should take steps to get the other accused persons summoned. The Petitioners thereafter filed a petition in revision before the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge has made the reference to this Court.

6. The observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in his order, is that, the allegations of the complaint make it clear that the bigamous marriage took place at Lucknow. In view of that fact the learned Sessions Judge immediately took the decision that the learned magistrate at Ballia did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of that offence. With regard to the charge of abetment against the other co-accused the learned Sessions Judge observed that accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 (Smt. Sobha Rani Srivastava, Ram Chander Prasad and Jitendra Kumar) were living at Allahabad while accused No. 3 Raj Narain Sinha was living at Lucknow; accused No. 1 was living at Faizabad and only accused Nos. 6, that it to say, Sri Krishan Lal was living at Ballia. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that in the evidence recorded u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, there was nothing to suggest that abetment took place at Ballia. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter quoted the provision of Section 201(1) and came to the conclusion that the learned magistrate at Ballia had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take cognizance of the case and he should have returned the complaint to the complainant as provided in that section.

7. In support of the reference it has been urged that from the allegations made in the complaint it does not appear that any act in relation to the offences whic