Mridula Mishra, J.

1. The petitioners, six in number have challenged the order of cognizance dated 22.7.2002 passed in complaint case No. 1088(C) of 2002 Tr. No. 1694 of 2002. By this order cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Secs. 323, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

2. The order has been challenged by the petitioners only on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, has got no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case as from the complaint petition itself it is apparent that no part of offences have been committed at Patna and the complainant as well as the accused persons are also not residing at Patna. The cognizance is bad u/s. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. u/s. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. In the background of sec. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts of the case is to be looked into and the ground on which the petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance is to be considered.

4. The complainant-opposite party No.