Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including order taking cognizance dated 24.7.1992 for the offence under Secs. 498-A, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Short facts given rise to this application, are as under:

Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Tripti Mitra, wife of petitioner No. 1 filed, a complaint being Complaint Case No. 123 of 1992 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih stating therein, inter alia that her marriage was solemnised according to Vedic and Hindu religious rites on 19.2.1988 with Bhaskar Mitra, accused No. 1 and after some time the accused persons started demanding heavy cash under duress she wrote letter to her brother to fulfill the demand of the accused persons and accordingly her brother paid a sum of Rs. 3, 000 and again a sum of Rs. 5, 000 to the accused persons, Even after payment of money by her brother she was subjected to cruelty. She was subjected to mercilessly assault by her husband, Bhasker Mitra and regularly she was being tortured by the accused persons for fulfilment of their demands and consequently thereof she was driven out from her husbands house by her husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law and she was threatened with dire consequences and, accordingly, she went to her brother place at Kargali and there also accused persons were chasing her and ultimately she was shifted to Baniadih. For the aforesaid reasons, she therefore, apprehending torture at the hands of the accused persons, lodged the complaint case. On the basis of the complaint petition the complainant was examined on S. A. and accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, took cognizance of the offence under Secs. 498-A, 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 123 of 1992.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as the complainant after her marriage with petition No. 1 started living at Allahabad and therefore, a Court at Allahabad could have taken cognizance of the offence and the complaint petition was not maintainable before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, submitted that as the complainant was residing permanently at Baniadih in the district of Giridih with her brother, Giridih was the permanent residence attracting the provisions of Sec. 182(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that view of the matter the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and to take cognizance of the offence.

6. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Mr. Rajaram Venkatesh and Ors. V/s. The State of A.P. and Ors. 1993 (1) Cr LJ 707.

7. Before, I proceed to decide the question as argued at the bar with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court at Giridih it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the complaint, which is as follows:

That thereafter I was forcibly driven out of my husbands house by my husband and the father and the mother-in-law . With open threatening that I will never be spared and would be done to death at any place if I did not obey them and return with the scooter. I had no alternative but to go back to my brothers place and I have been compelled to live there. After some time I alongwith my brother found some unknown persons with cruel faces loitering and moving in suspicious manner near about my residence. On enquiry form them they laughed brutally and told my brother that they were by my husband Bhaskar Mitra to have news about me. I alongwith my brothers became panicy and because of my saf