Judgment D.H. Waghela, J.—Although both the revision applications are filed by different petitioners and purport to arise from different criminal cases, being Criminal Cases No. 2333 of 2002 and 2585 of 2001, they have been argued together and disposed by this common judgment because identical order dated 01.04.2008 of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar is called into question and that the impugned order is arising from the same complaint. By the impugned order, the accused persons are discharged without entering into merits of the allegations and charges of serious criminal offences only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-wife, who filed complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 497, 498, 465, 471 and 114 of IPC, has approached this Court and it was submitted on her behalf that, admittedly, she was residing at and settled in Gandhinagar due to which learned Magistrate at Gandhinagar had jurisdiction to try the case even as investigation was completed and charge-sheet was already filed for the offences punishable under Sections 497, 494, 465, 471 and 114 of IPC. 2. The original complaint is filed by the wife against her husband, his parents and his newly wedded wife, who happens to be the complainant’s sister. It is, in short, alleged that, after obtaining her signature on stamp papers, a deed of divorce was prepared and the main accused person has thereafter married to her sister, who also was already married to another person. Thus, the alleged second marriage took place on 17.1.2000 and the complainant was left in lurch while her husband had settled in her new matrimonial home and has by now a daughter aged 9, according to the submission. After almost eight years of filing of the complaint, the accused persons have been discharged by the impugned order dated 01.04.2008 and that order was completely illegal and perverse, according to the submission. The husband of original complainant is himself an advocate practicing in the High Court and around Ahmedbad, while the petitioner is admittedly living in Gandhinagar due to which the complaint has also been registered in Gandhinagar as early as on 05.01.2001. The petition was argued on behalf of the respondent by Mr. B.P. Bhatt himself as party-in-person and by learned counsel Mr. Ravani. 3. The petition was argued on behalf of the respondent by Mr. B.P. Bhatt himself as party-in-person and by learned counsel Mr. Ravani. 3. Bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that even after adverting to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 182 of Cr.P.C., learned JMFC has relied upon the factum of second marriage of the husband at Ahmedabad and discharged the accused persons for want of territorial jurisdiction after holding in favour of the accused persons the other issues as well. In view of the express provisions of Section 182 of Cr.P.C. and the undisputed fact that the petitioner was settled in Gandhinagar after commission of the alleged offences, it was absolutely clear that the impugned judgment and order were obviously illegal and perverse. It is indeed shocking that learned Judge of the rank of Civil Judge of Senior Division, who even after adverting to the provisions of Section 182 (2) of Cr.P.C. and without any controversy about permanent residence of the complainant, discharged all the accused persons by the impugned order after seven years of the complaint and filing of the charge-sheet after investigation by the police. It calls for an inquiry by the High Court on its administrative side, particularly in view of the fact that one of the accused persons happened to be a practicing advocate and the complainant being an estranged woman who is admittedly not paid even regular amount of maintenance. 4. In view of the above facts and inordinate delay in the proceeding before the trial Court and the statement that a warrant for execution of the order to pay maintenance is already issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitions are allowed, the impugned order dated 01.04.2008 in both the revision applications is quashed and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as practicable and in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C. so as to conclude the trial preferably by 30.06.2009. A copy of this order shall be served upon learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar to consider whether original Criminal Cases No. 2333 of 2002 and 2585 of 2001 are required to be transferred and placed before another learned Magistrate in Gandhinagar under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. In view of the above observations, it was fairly stated on behalf of the respondent that the respondent would co-operate in earliest practicable conclusion of the trial and, if in case of necessity an application for exemption from personal presence of any of the accused persons is made, the petitioner would not object and the trial will not be delayed on account of absence of any of the accused persons in the trial Court. That would, however, not fetter the powers of the trial Court as and when personal presence of the accused persons is required. It was also stated on behalf of the respondent that the overdue amount of maintenance required to be paid to the petitioner, which comes to approximately Rs. 21,000/-, shall be paid within 15 days from today. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.