Deoki Nandan - (1.) BY this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for the quashing of a proceeding pending against him in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, I, Bulandshahr wherein he has been charged for having committed the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code and for having abetted the same.
(2.) THE ground on which the application is founded is that the courts at Bulandshahr have no jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence, for the marriage complained of was performed at Delhi and the offence, if any, was committed at Delhi and not at Bulandshahr. An application was made in the Magistrate's court, challenging his jurisdiction on that ground. By an order dated 22nd July, 1977, the learned Magistrate observed that the offence of abetment had been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of his court, though the offence under Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code was in fact committed at Delhi; and therefore, under Section 178 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was also within the jurisdiction of his court to try the case. THE learned Magistrate, however, proceeded to observe that the application had been made after the framing of charges and full evidence had yet to be recorded and, therefore, he left the question of jurisdiction to be decided at the final stage, and for the time being reserved the application for passing final orders at that stage. Apart from the reason given by the learned Magistrate about the situs of the offence of abetment with which the applicant has been charged, the basic ingredient of an offence under Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code, is the act of concealment, from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, of the fact of the former marriage. It follows that the act of concealment is one of the several acts of which the offence under Section 494 read with Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code consists of. It is quite within the realm of possibility that some negotiations for the second marriage preceded, the performance of the marriage at Delhi, and that such negotiations took place at Bulandshahr where the complainant's parents reside. Whether it was so or not is a fact which can be decided only after the evidence lias been led in the case. Evidence cannot be led piecemeal because the offence is one and indivisible. I think the learned Magistrate was fully justified in saying that the question of jurisdiction raised by the applicant would be finally decided only after the entire evidence in the case had been led. The application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.;