JUDGMENT

Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Case called out in the revised list.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for State and perused the record.

3. It is contended that court at Gorakhpur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and he has been wrongly summoned in the matter. In this context, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that as per the version in FIR, the incident had taken place at Calcutta, where father-in-law and mother-in-law as well as the wife and her husband were residing on account of the fact that the father-in-law Hari Bhusan Rai was in police service at Calcutta and on this count, he submitted that court at Gorakhpur has no jurisdiction to entertain to take cognizance of the offence.

4. In this connection, it will be expedient to go through the provisions of ordinary place of inquiry and trial as mentioned in Section 177 Cr.P.C. which is as follows:

“Section 177— Ordinary place of inquiry and trial—Every offences shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.”

“Section 178— Place of inquiry or trial— (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence