S.S.SODHI,J - (1.) THE challenge in revision here is to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint.
(2.) ON a complaint filed by Chhinder Singh, the parents of Surinder Singh, the petitioners Sadhu Singh and Gurdev Kaur have been summoned under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The sole contention raised here was with regard to the jurisdiction of the court at Muktsar to pass the impugned order. It was pointed out in this behalf that the alleged offence of the second marriage contracted by Surinder Singh took place in village Potli, Tehsil Sardul Shahbad in district Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan and it was consequently the court in Rajasthan that had the requisite jurisdiction and not that at Mukstsar. The short answer to this is, however, to be found in the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lay down that an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code may be enquired into and tried by a court within whose jurisdiction the offender last resided with the spouse by the first marriage or the wife by the first has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence. The material on record clearly discloses the fact that it was within the jurisdiction of the court at Muktsar that Surinder Singh and his first wife Kulwinder Kaur resided and this is there that Kulwinder Kaur has her permanent residence after the alleged second marriage of her husband. This being so, no exception can be taken to the court of Muktsar assuming jurisdiction in the matter.
(3.) THIS revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.;