IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2525 of 2010() ------------------------- CMP.NO.2569/2009 OF J.F.C.M COURT-I, ETTUMANOOR ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SINDHU K.SURENDRAN, KEEZHEDATH HOUSE, MUNDUVELIPPADY BHAGAM, PADINJATTUM BHAGAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SADASIVAN SURESH, S/O.SADASIVAN, MANIKUTTIYIL VEEDU, ATDITHYAPURAM BHAGAM, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, VAIKAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2525 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the complainant in CMP.No.2569/2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court-I, Ettumanoor challenges Annexure-III order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Magistrate returning the complaint under Section 201 Cr.P.C on the ground that the alleged offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 I.P.C took place at Bombay and that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of the Court below. 2. According to the petitioner, in the complaint filed by her, herself and the 2nd respondent herein, after their marriage, last resided in Athirampuzha Village within the local limits of the J.F.C.M Court-I, Ettumanoor and while so the 2nd respondent has contracted a second marriage with the 3rd respondent and both of them after the said marriage have started residing in Muttuchira Village which is also within the limits of the J.F.C.M Court-I, Crl.M.C. No.2525 OF 2010 : 2 : Ettumanoor 3. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have considered the applicability of Section 182 (2) Cr.P.C and the decision of the Madras High Court in S.Elango v. S.Ravindran 1998 CRI. L. J. 3095. Since the complaint was returned at the pre-cognizance stage, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Annexure-III order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration. CMP.No.2569/2009 shall stand restored to file for consideration afresh. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb