@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rajasuria, J.@mdashAnimadverting upon the order dated 09.02.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, in CMP No. 4542 of 2006 in C.C. No. 784 of 2005, this criminal revision is focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The respondent herein filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore as against the accused persons, viz., (1) Reeta (2) M. Vijayakumar (3) Chandrasamy (4) Karunakaran (5) Raja Gunaseelan (6) Arulselvan (7) J. John Ramesh (8) S. Arulprabhu (9) J. Rajnikanth and (10) R. Rajesh, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 500, 420 and 496 r/w Section 109 of IPC., on the ground that the first accused/Reeta even though happened to be the wife of the complainant/Premkumar, the respondent herein, married A2/Vijaya Kumar. All other accused helped him by conspiring with him and accordingly, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to all the accused. The Magistrate should have resorted to warrant procedure as contemplated under part-B, Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. However, the order is not clear in that regard.
3. Be that as it may, there is some reference to examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 in that order which could be taken as the ones emerged before the framing of charge. At that stage, C.M.P. No. 4542 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioners/A1 to A3 herein u/s 245 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the Magistrate, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the sum and substance of them would run thus:
The lower Court failed to take into consideration the jurisdiction point as well as the limitation point. Without considering the contention of the accused, simply the petition was dismissed.
5. Despite printing the name of the counsel for the respondent, none appeared. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds of revision and submitted that absolutely there is no reason found spelt out in the order of the lower Court relating to jurisdiction point as well as the limitation point and the Magistrate simply was carried away by the complainant''s case as there are grounds for framing charge, throwing to winds the ingredients of Sections 420, 500, 496 and 120(B) of IPC.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in simply dismissing the application u/s 245 Cr.P.C. filed by the revision petitioners herein/A1 to A3.
8. A plain reading of the judgment of the lower Court would reveal that it is far from satisfactory. Relating to jurisdiction point is concerned, the ratiocination adhered to by the Magistrate is to the effect that since A1/Reeta had chosen Coimbatore Family Court as the forum for seeking divorce, the respondent/complainant was right in choosing Coimbatore Judicial Magistrate Court as the forum for lodging the complaint relating to the alleged second marriage entered into between Reeta and Vijaya Kumar at Kangeyam, which is not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore. The Judicial Magistrate was expected to apply her mind by considering Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. relating to jurisdiction of criminal Courts. Instead of doing that, she indulged in rhetoric and quibble, which is totally unwarranted and illegal. The jurisdiction relating to Family Court in entertaining a divorce petition is entirely different from the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to entertain the complaint regarding the offence u/s 496 IPC etc., which took place in a different jurisdiction. However, I would like to add that I do not conclusively decide about the jurisdiction here, but I would like to send the matter back to the Magistrate to apply Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. and see as to whether from the facts placed before the Magistrate, the said Magistrate''s jurisdiction is attracted or not.
9. The learned Magistrate simply dilated without concentrating on the ingredients of the penal sections concerned. The respondent/husband of Reeta has not chosen to invoke Section 494 IPC for the reasons best known to him, but he has chosen to invoke Section 496 IPC. The scope of Section 496 IPC is that an aggrieved party to the alleged fake marriage should set the criminal law in motion and not the respondent/complainant who is the real husband of Reeta. This aspect the Magistrate never concentrated at all and she is expected to concentrate by applying the ingredients of Section 496 IPC and also by keeping herself well informed of precedents thereunder.
10. Section 500 IPC has been invoked beyond three years from the date of the alleged defamation. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that Section 500 IPC contemplates imprisonment up to two years and within three years limitation period as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the complaint should have been filed. Further more, the Magistrate was expected to concentrate as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 500 IPC is ex facie and prima facie attracted or not, and she has not chosen to do so.
11. Similarly the Magistrate was expected to go through the ingredients of each and every penal sections involved in this case and analyse as to whether there is prima facie ground for framing charge. But the Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction properly, warranting interference by this Court.
12. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the C.M.P. No. 4542 of 2006 is remitted back to the Magistrate for hearing both sides afresh and pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This criminal revision case is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
