Chapter XIII
Section 182 CrPC: Offences committed by letters, etc
New Law Update (2024)
Section 179 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Definitional
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practised by means of letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received; and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person.
(2) Any offence punishable under Section 495 or Section 494 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 where the wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 182(1)
This sub-section defines the territorial jurisdiction for cheating offences where deception is carried out using letters or telecommunication messages. It stipulates that such cases can be tried by courts where these communications were sent or received, or where property was delivered or received as a result of the deception.
Section 182(2)
This sub-section outlines the jurisdictional rules for bigamy offences under the Indian Penal Code. It allows for the trial to take place in the court where the offence was committed, where the offender last resided with their first spouse, or where the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the bigamy.
Landmark Judgements
Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004):
The Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 498A IPC, laid down crucial principles regarding territorial jurisdiction in matrimonial offences. It emphasized that jurisdiction lies only with the court where the component parts of the offence are committed. This ruling provides a foundational understanding for interpreting jurisdictional clauses in similar statutes, including those related to bigamy under Section 182(2) CrPC, by focusing on where the actual offence or its essential ingredients occurred.
Smt. Archana Rana vs. State of U.P. and Others (2018):
The Allahabad High Court clarified the interpretation of “where the wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of offence” under Section 182(2) CrPC. The Court held that for this clause to apply, the wife must have taken up permanent residence at a place with the intention to reside there permanently after the alleged bigamy, and not merely a temporary stay. This ensures that the provision is not misused for forum shopping.
Mohd. Hasan Khan v. The State of Rajasthan (2014):
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated and explained the multiple jurisdictional options available under Section 182(2) CrPC for offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC. The court affirmed that a case can be tried not only where the bigamous marriage took place but also where the offender last resided with the first spouse, or where the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the offence, providing flexibility in initiating proceedings for bigamy.