Lack of territorial jurisdiction does not vitiate criminal trial unless failure of justice is pleaded and proved.

The Appellant (complainant), father of the first wife, filed a complaint for bigamy under Sections 494 and 114 of the IPC against Respondent No. 1 and others.

The complaint was filed in Patan, alleging the second marriage occurred in Anand and the Respondent last resided with the first wife in Anand

The Trial Court (JMFC, Patan) acquitted the accused on merits while simultaneously holding it lacked territorial jurisdiction

The Appellant challenged this, arguing that once jurisdiction was found lacking, the Court could not adjudicate on merits

Evidence showed the first wife worked in Kutch and never resided in Patan after the alleged offense

1. Whether the Court at Patan possessed territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint under the specific provisions governing bigamy

2. Whether a finding of lack of territorial jurisdiction by the Trial Court vitiates the proceedings or precludes an adjudication on merits

3. Whether the complainant sufficiently proved the solemnization of a valid second marriage as required for conviction under Section 494 IPC

Section 182(2) of the CrPC, which provides three alternative jurisdictions for bigamy: where the offense was committed, where the couple last resided, or where the wife took permanent residence after the offense

Section 462 of the CrPC, which saves proceedings conducted in a "wrong place" unless a failure of justice is proved

Inability to return a complaint under Section 201 CrPC once process is issued under Section 204 as per Devendra Kishanlal Nagalia v. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.

Section 494 IPC requires strict proof of a valid marriage with essential ceremonies, as established in Krishnaveni v. Rajendran

The High Court determined that the Patan Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the alleged marriage occurred in Anand, the couple last resided in Anand, and the wife lived in Kutch, not Patan

applying Section 462 CrPC, the Court reasoned that lack of territorial jurisdiction is a mere irregularity, not an illegality that voids the trial, especially since the Appellant failed to plead or prove any "failure of justice"

Regarding the merits, the Court noted that the complainant's witness (PW-2) provided vague testimony that failed to establish the performance of essential Hindu rituals (e.g., Saptapadi)

The Birth Certificate (Exh. 88) was deemed insufficient because cohabitation or the birth of a child does not constitute legal proof of a "solemnized" second marriage in criminal law

the prosecution failed to prove the factum of a valid second marriage beyond a reasonable doubt, as essential ceremonies were not established; the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal