IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinary venue for trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on evidence, facts occur and which alleged to constitute the crime.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby the appellants prayer for quashing proceedings in CC 3532 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai, by exercise of powers under-Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) was rejected. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:

3. Respondent No.2 as complainant filed complaint in the Court of the concerned magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the Dowry Act ). The magistrate directed the police to investigate and after investigation charge-sheet was filed by the police. When the matter stood thus, the appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court alleging that the concerned magistrate has no jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint even if the allegations contained therein are accepted in toto. According to them, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. The complaint itself disclosed that after 15.4.1997, the respondent left Nagercoil and came to Chennai and was staying there. All the allegations which are per se without any basis took place according to the complainant at Nagercoil, and therefore, the Courts at Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was further submitted that earlier a complaint was lodged by the complainant before the concerned police officials having jurisdiction; but after inquiry no action was deemed necessary.

4. In response, learned counsel submitted that some of the offences were continuing offences. The appellant No.1 had initiated proceedings for judicial separation, the notice for which was received by her at Chennai and, therefore, the cause of action existed.

5. The High Court unfortunately did not consider rival stands and even did not record any finding on the question of law raised regarding lack of jurisdiction. It felt that legal parameters were to be considered after a thorough trial after due opportunity to the parties and, therefore, the factual points raised by parties were not to be adjudicated under Section 484 of the Code.

6. In support of the appeal Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel, submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. A bare reading of the complaint would go to show that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court where the complaint was filed. Therefore, the entire proceedings had no foundation.

7. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant submitted that the offences were continuing in terms of Section 178(c) of the Code, and therefore. The Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

8. Section 177 of the Code deals with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial, and reads as follows:

"Section 177 : ORDINARY PLACE OF INQUIRY AND TRIAL:

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."

9. Sections 177 to 186 deal with venue and place of trial. Section 177 reiterates the well-established common law rule referred to in Halsbury s Laws of England (Vol. IX para 83) that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence, the facts occur and which alleged to constitute the crime. There are several exceptions to this general rule and some of them are, so far as the present case is concerned, indicated in Section 178 of the Code which read as follows:

"Section 178: PLACE OF INQUIRY OR TRIAL

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly in one loca