1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2163 OF 2010 Ramesh S/o Kaduba Narayankar and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. R.V. Gore, advocate for applicants. Mr. V.D. Godbharale, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 20 th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The only point raised in this application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is in respect of jurisdiction available to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Vaijapur. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 is absent. Mr. Gore, learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that the private complaint shows, clearly and very plainly that the second marriage was allegedly performed on 26.06.2002 at Shri Kshetra Rameshwar at Lahughad-Nandra, Tq. Fulambri. He would 2 submit that the private complaint case for the offence under Section 494 r/w 109 is filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Vaijapur inspite of such specific allegation. He contended that the applicants are likely to be harassed due to the prosecution before a wrong Forum. It appears that the respondent no.2 is residing with her parents at village Chikatgaon (Tq. Fulambri) since October, 1998 as per her avernments in the complaint. It is alleged that the husband did not allow her to enter his house. She was not being permitted reunion and restoration of conjugal rights. 4. In such a case, Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be applicable. Where the consequence which has ensued, is felt by aggrieved party, such complaint can be lodged. It can also be said that the specific provisions under Section 182(2) is applicable. It reads as follows : Offences committed by letters, etc. "Section 182(1):................ (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 3 up permanent residence after the commission of the offence." 5. Perusal of section (2) of Section 182 makes it clear that the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code may be tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed or the spouse by the first marriage resided at the time of commission of the offence. It appears that the respondent no.2 (complainant) is residing within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court, and therefore, there appears no jurisdictional error even though the alleged offence is said to have committed within the jurisdiction of Fulambri Court. Consequently, on such a plea of jurisdictional error, the application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can not be entertained. The application is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri2163.10