( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2006 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2006 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.445 OF 2006 Mrs.Nilambari Narendra Bhosale .. Applicant. Versus Shri Narendra Baburao Bhosale & Another .. Respondents. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh Kachare for respondent No.1. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. DATED : 5th June, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- 1. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh Kachare for respondent No.1. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for respondent No.2 - State. 2. Rule is issued on the revision. Ms.Jhaveri, learned A.P.P. and Mr.Rajesh Kachare waive service on behalf of their respective clients. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the revision is taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The present applicant being wife of respondent No.1 filed a complaint in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Khed, District Ratnagiri being R.C.C.No.54 of 2002 under Section 494 of the I.P.C. Evidence before charge of the applicant came to be recorded on 9.10.2002. Thereafter, examination of other witnesses was conducted and the respondent No.1 filed ( 2 ) application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application at Exhibit-50 on 16.8.2004 requesting the Court to recall the present applicant to submit herself for cross examination before charge. This application was made by respondent No.1 for the purposes of seeking certain clarifications as regards the venue where respondent No.1 is alleged to have entered into second matrimony. That application was heard by the learned J.M.F.C., Khed and by order dated 3.10.2006, the learned Trial Judge decided the said application at Exhibit-50 in favour of respondent No.1 and granted the application for recalling which necessitated presence of the present applicant before the learned Trial Judge for submitting herself for further cross examination. 4. After having heard the learned Advocates on both the sides, it is seen that according to the applicant respondent No.1 married Rupa at Village Parshuram, Taluka Chiplun and this can be said on the basis of specific averments in the complaint which came to be filed under Section 494 of the I.P.C. I had the benefit of perusing the text of the evidence of the applicant before charge where the applicant has stated in her evidence disclosing the venue of second marriage as "Parshuram Lote". This Court was informed that there are two villages, namely, village Parshuram ( 3 ) and village by name Lote and village Parshuram falls within the revenue jurisdiction of Taluka Chiplun whereas village Lote falls within the revenue jurisdiction of Taluka Khed. Learned Advocate Mr.Kachare submitted that the application for recalling was made for the purpose of seeking clarification and having the venue of alleged marriage was fixed in a proper manner so that the respondent No.1 would consider the said venue and then take up an appropriate stand with reference to the jurisdiction of the learned J.M.F.C., Khed in the matter of issuing of process. Learned Advocate Mr.Kachare submitted that no prejudice would be caused if the applicant is made to step into the witness box to render clarification as was expected by respondent No.1. 5. Learned Advocate Mr.Sabrad appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the reasoning arrived at by the learned Trial Judge is inconceivable and he has unnecessarily gone into the question of jurisdiction and that the impugned order is passed without proper application of mind. Learned Advocate Mr.Sabrad submitted that the evidence led by the applicant is crystal clear and that there was no need for the respondent No.1 to seek re-examination of the applicant and that the application was filed solely to create confusion. He has submitted that the impugned ( 4 ) order be set aside. 6. After having heard learned Advocates, I have perused the record. One thing is clear that the applicant has positively stated in her complaint that respondent No.1 married to the said Rupa between 22nd to 26th December 1999 at Parshuram village, Taluka Chiplun which is near Khed. This will mean that the applicant has approached the Court with a positive case that the alleged marriage had taken place at village Parshuram which falls within the revenue jurisdiction of Taluka Chiplun. If this is the position, in the normal course, the words used by the applicant "Parshuram Lote" will have to be read in consonance with the averments in the complaint and there is no need to read that the marriage is said to have taken place at village Lote which is patently different from the village Parshuram. It was necessary for the learned Trial Judge to re-concile the evidence given by the applicant with reference to the text of the complaint in regard to the place of marriage and decide the matter. 7. In my view, the learned Trial Judge unnecessarily went into the question with regard to the jurisdiction which did not fall for his consideration at the relevant time. He should have ( 5 ) restricted to the question which was before him as regards recalling the applicant. In my view, there is no need to recall the present applicant because the place where the alleged marriage took place can be fixed by the learned Trial Judge by reading in the first place, the text of the complaint and the evidence where the reference to the word Parshuram appears. In view of the above, the application for recalling is required to be rejected and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 3.10.2006 is also required to be set aside with a direction to the learned Trial Judge to take up the matter further. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order :- a) Rule is made absolute. Revision is allowed. b) Application at Exhibit-50 dated 16.8.2004 filed by the respondent No.1 is rejected. The impugned order dated 3.10.2006 is set aside. c) The learned J.M.F.C., Khed, District Ratnagiri shall proceed with the trial with ( 6 ) reference to the venue of the marriage. He shall read the relevant record, namely, the text of the complaint and the evidence of the applicant where words "Parshuram Lote" appear. d) This Court is informed that the trial is pending despite the order passed on 22.11.2006 to decide the trial as early as possible and on or before 31.5.2007. It appears that as a result of the pendency of this petition, the trial is not over. The learned J.M.F.C., Khed, District Ratnagiri is now directed to dispose off the trial of the C.C.No.54 of 2002 within three months from the date of receipt of the writ containing this order. 9. Revision application stands disposed off in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)