Court Within Whose Jurisdiction First Wife Has Taken Up Permanent Residence Can Try Offences U/S 494/495 IPC: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the court within whose jurisdiction the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can try those offences. A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus in view of the mandate of Section 182 (2)CrPC, which states that...
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the court within whose jurisdiction the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can try those offences.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus in view of the mandate of Section 182 (2)CrPC, which states that offences punishable under Sections 494 or 495 IPC can be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or where the offender last resided with their first spouse, or where the first spouse has taken up permanent residence after the offence.
The case in brief
The Court was essentially dealing with an application filed by Inder Alias Lala challenging a summons issued to him by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Fast Tact Court/Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in a complaint case filed by his wife (complainant/O.P. No.2) under Sections 494 (marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife) and 495 (same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted) of the IPC.
It was alleged that the applicant committed an offence under Section 494 IPC as he got married during the lifetime of the complainant without obtaining any divorce from her and when he was confronted, he committed an offence under Section 506 I.P.C
After the alleged commission of the offences, his first wife took up permanent residence in Ghaziabad (her matrimonial house was in Delhi).
Challenging the summons as well as entire case proceedings, the applicant contended before the HC that the complaint was filed within the jurisdiction of District Ghaziabad, whereas after marriage, the complainant resided with the applicant in Delhi; as such, in view of Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, the Court at District Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction.
Perusing the mandate of Section 182 (2) CrPC, the Court noted that the complainant has been residing at the given address in District Ghaziabad for many years after being left by the applicant.
“…complainant is permanently residing at the given address at District Ghaziabad, therefore, in view of Section 182 (2) of CrPC. as referred above, Court within its local jurisdiction, wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of offence punishable under Sections 494 or 495 I.P.C, has jurisdiction, i.e. in the present case in District-Ghaziabad…”, the Court noted as it stated that objection of the applicant regarding jurisdiction had no merit.
Further, the court, considering the complainant's statement under Section 200 CrPC, the witnesses' statements under Section 202 CrPC, and the summoning order dated March 3, .2021 for offences under Sections 491, 406, and 506 IPC, concluded that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant.
Accordingly, the application was rejected.
Case title - Inder Alias Lala vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 425