Loknath Prasad, J.

1. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner who were described as accused in complaint case No. 503/9S filed bv the opposite party No. 1 Smt. Chetna Saraf pending before the Chief judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

2. For proper appreciation of this application, it can be said that the aforesaid complaint was filed by the complainant, Chetna who is admittedly the married wife of petitioner No. .1 Bimlesh Kumar Saraf and other petitioners are father, brother and the wife of the brother of the husband-accused. Allegations were levelled by the married wife as against her husband and in-laws that at the time of marriage demand was made by wav of dowry a Maruti car and Rs. 1 lakh in cash besides some ornaments to which the father of the complainant could not comply. However, on pursuasion of others, marriage was solemnised. After the marriage when the complainant was in here matrimonial house at Muzaffarpur, she was occasionally tortured and even assaulted and she was not even provided with proper food and she was neglected awfully even at the time of giving birth to a male child, In-laws including the husband used to torture and subjected her to harassment. So that she can pursuade her brother and other family members to meet the demand of the dowry. It has also been alleged that harassment was up to a great extend and had reached a peak and at one stage the complainant decided to end her life; but as she was pregnant she had not committed the suicide and ultimately on 17.7.90, she was driven out of the Matrimonial house and she was compelled to come to Katras to live in the house of her brother. The allegation is also that the husband filed a divorce suit which was dismissed ex pane and efforts were made to patch up the matter which failed. Then the complainant was forced to file this complaint case under Sec. 498-A, and also under Section 406, IPC at Dhanbad court because the complainant was residing within the jurisdiction of the Dhanbad Court. The learned CJM after examining the complainant on Solemn affirmation by order dated 6.9.95 dismissed the complaint case by a very cryptic order that the entire allegation of harassment and torture was within the territorial jurisdiction of Muzaffarpur and so the Dhanbad court has no jurisdiction and further the complained offence under Sec. 498-A, is barred by limitation because the complaint was filed after three years of the alleged occurrence.

3. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal order of the complaint, the complainant preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 154/95. Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, by a detailed order dated 10.7.96 set aside the dismissal order of the CJM and came to the conclusion that the offence under Sec. 498-A, is a continuing offence and further the Dhanbad court has a jurisdiction to try the offence in view of the provision of Sec. 179, Cr. P.C and thus, directed the CJM to make a further enquiry into the matter under Sec. 202, Cr.PC, and then to pass order according to law. Being aggrieved by this order of the revisional court, the petitioners who are the accused in the complaint case preferred this revision.

4. Admittedly the petitioners are husband and in-laws of the complainant- wife and after the marriage the complainant was living in Muzaffarpur and at that very place the complainant alleged that she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and even she was driven out of the matrimonial house, so that she will pursuade her brother and her brother will be compelled to fulfill the dowry demand of Maruti car and cash amount as mentioned above.

5. learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Dayal criticised the impugned order and contended that the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside mainly for the reason that the entire allegation as levelled in the complaint petition actually happened at Muzaffarpur and so only the Muzaffarpur court got the jurisdiction to enquire into and to try the offence and t