(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appellants have challenged the order dated 14-7-1995 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 725 of 1991. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision application in which the appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Court of Bankura to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants contended that the alleged cruelty having taken place in the city of Calcutta, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr Mukherjee appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the complaint made by the respondent which is Annexure V (collectively) in the special leave petition. There is some force in the contention of Mr Mukherjee that although according to the complainant wife, she was given false promises and assurances on several occasions both in Calcutta and in Bankura but beating and other cruelties alleged in the petition of complainant had taken place at Calcutta. It, however, appears to us that it has been specifical