JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order dated 20th January, 1988, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 86 of 1983. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate against her husband Rakesh Saxena and three respondents herein, namely Dal Chand Verma, Girish Chandra Gupta and Vadhumal. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused, Rakesh Saxena after marrying the petitioner had entered into a second marriage with Smt. Reeta Rahat and they were living like husband and wife. The aforesaid three respondents had also been made accused in the aforesaid complaint because they were attesting witnesses to the second marriage between Rakesh Saxena and Smt. Reeta Rahat. As per the complaint itself, the marriage between them took place in Agra, but the three respondents were also made accused in the complaint filed against Rakesh Saxena on the ground that the attesting witnesses who attested the parties to the marriage, may also be tried with the main accused against whom the complainant had been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Dholpur. When the matter came up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur on 20th Jan.,1988,so far as Rakesh Saxena is concerned, the matter was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the complainant who wanted to produce some more material before arguing on the question of framing the chargebut respondents No. 2,3 and 4 namely, Dal Chand Verna, Girish Chandra Gupta and Vadhumal are concerned, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order on the ground that they were only attesting witnesses to a marriage which was admittedly performed at Agra and, there- fore,the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur was not competent to take cognizance of the offence which is alleged to have taken place in another State i.e. Uttar Pradesh. Against this order dated 20th January, 1988, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 182(2) and Section 196(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant parts of both these provisions is reproduced as under. Against this order dated 20th January, 1988, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 182(2) and Section 196(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant parts of both these provisions is reproduced 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." 186(b)- If the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued." 4. According to Section 182(2) any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495, Indian Penal Code 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 permanent residence after the commission of the offence. Thus, it was open for the petitioner to prosecute her husband Rakesh Saxena either at Agra or the place where the offender last resided with her i.e. Dholpur as per the complaint. if the petitioner wanted to prosecute her husband Rakesh Saxena as well as the present respondents who are said to be the attesting witnesses to the marriage, she should have chosen to file a complaint in Agra itself where the marriage had taken place, but the complaint had been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur and the question is whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur is competent to take cognizance of the offence which was committed in Agra with regard to the three respondents who are residents of Agra (UP), as per the ad- dresses given by the petitioner herself. Thus, in my opinion, the provisions of Section 182(2) are of no avail to the petitioner for the purpose of prosecuting the three respondents in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur. 5. So far as the provisions of Section 186(b), Cr. Thus, in my opinion, the provisions of Section 182(2) are of no avail to the petitioner for the purpose of prosecuting the three respondents in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur. 5. So far as the provisions of Section 186(b), Cr. P.C. are concerned,the condition precedent for invoking Section 186(b) is that two or more courts may have taken cognizance of the same offence. Admittedly, the matter is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur and it is not even the case of the petitioner that the cognizance of the offence had been taken at two or more courts and, thus,there is no question before me as to which of them are to inquire into or try the offence. In this view of the matter, there is no basis for invoking the provisions of Section 186(b), Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and having perused the record, I do not find that the order dated 20th January, 1988 impugned in this petition warrants any interference under Section 482,Criminal Procedure Code 7. This petition is accordingly rejected. The record of the case receivedPetition allowed. *******