IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.20 of 2007 Date of decision: 18-06-2008 Manoj Kumar & others Appellants Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellants: Mr. B.N.Mishra, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. No.2: Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja, J (Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Criminal Complaint No.42/01/06 under Section 498-A,406,323,506,494,495,496,497 IPC read with Section 34 & 120-B IPC, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solan. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that a perusal of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 will show that no offence was committed by the present petitioner within the jurisdiction at Solan. The learned Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 counsel for Respondent No.2 has contended that a perusal of Section 182(2) Cr.P.C. would show that this Section was amended and inserted by Act No.45 of 1978 which reads as under: “182(2) Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence”. It is therefore, clear from a perusal of this petition that even if the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized by husband of respondent No.1 in the State of Orissa but the cognizance can be taken by the trial Court where the wife takes up the permanent residence after the commission of the offence. It was submitted that the respondent had his permanent residence at Solan before the commission of offence. This plea cannot be considered at this stage but it is clear that in case the wife takes permanent residence after the commission of offence at some other place after the offence was committed, the said Court has the jurisdiction to try the petition. When the complaint was filed before the trial Court, the trial Court took the cognizance and cognizance was rightly taken by the learned trial Court prima facie. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them at the time of 3 framing of the charge before the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 are old people and their personal presence may be exempted before the trial Court. This plea cannot be considered by this Court and it can be considered by the trial Court as and when an application is filed before the said Court during the trial of the case. The petition is disposed of accordingly. June 18, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)