ORDER
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. In view of provisions of Section 403 Cr.P.C. Court need not wait for the parties because whether the party should be heard or not is the point which pertains to domain of discreation of the Court. In Criminal Revision the revisional Court has to examine the correctness, propriety and legality of the Order which is under challenge.
2. The matter revolves around the allegation of the petitioner Durgabai that her husband Bhagatram married another woman when his married wife Durgabai was alive. According to her complaint, respondents No. 2 to 6 attempted the respondent No. 1 for committing the second marriage and they were present when the second marriage took place. The trial Judge took the cognizance of the complaint. The said Order passed by the trial Court was assailed by the respondents in revision petition which was decided by IInd A.S.J. Mandsaur in Cr. R. No. 232/93. The learned A.S.J. concluded that the act of taking cognizance of the said complaint and consequently the Order was not correct, proper and legal and, therefore, he set aside the order. That Order is put to challenge in this revision petition.
3. After perusing the record and the Order of the A.S.J. which is being assailed by this revision petition. This Court holds that the second revision petition in such circumstances is not maintainable in the High Court.
4. The learned A.S.J. has taken the view that in the complaint itself the petitioner Durgabai did not mention that the second marriage allegedly performed was within the local jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate at Mandsaur. It has been pointed out that in the complaint itself it was alleged by the present petitioner that said marriage took place in the local jurisdiction of the Court of the Magistrate at Neemuch. Apart from that, according to the allegations made in the complaint the spouces did not reside in the local jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate at Mandsaur, lastly, as contemplated by provisions of Section 182(2). It has been also pointed out by A.S.J. that there has been no averment in the complaint filed by the complainant that she had taken up the permanent residence after the commission of the offence in the local jurisdiction of the Court of J.M.F.C. Mandsaur.
5. For the purpose of determining the jurisdiction provisions of Section 182(2) Cr.P.C. will have to be considered seriously. There has to be an allegation in the complaint on either of the following three points; one; that the alleged offence of second marriage took place within the local jurisdiction of the Court where criminal complaint has been filed; two; the spouces last resided together at a place which was within the local jurisdiction of the Court where the complaint has been filed, and; three; that there should be averment in the complaint that the wife had taken up permanent residence in the local Jurisdiction of that Court after the commission of the said offence i.e., the said remarriage. Unless these averments are made in the complaint, the Court will not be able to take cognizance of such complaint because when the Court entertains a complaint, it is bound to apply judicial mind to the complaint and the averments made in it, so far as time and place of the offence is concerned and the way in which alleged offence took place. When the complaint is lacking of these important points, the Court can not take cognizance of such complaint and consequently cannot issue process against such accused indicated in the complaint.
6. Thus, this petition has to be dismissed and it stands dismissed. Record be sent to trial Court.