1. Petitioners are accused in Complaint Case No. 226 of 2005 for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 406, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant is opposite party No. 2 namely Kalwati Devi alias Rinki, who has filed the complaint case before the C.J.M. Kaimur at Bhabhua and the same was registered as Complaint Case No. 226 of 2005.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioners for transfer of Complaint Case No. 226 of 2005 from the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua to any other Court at Patna sessions division. The transfer has been sought for by the petitioners on the ground that the Bhabhua Court has no jurisdiction either to take cognizance or to try the case, which is evident from the facts revealed in the complaint case. As per the complaint case all incidents have taken place at Patna. the marriage was solemnised at Patna. Father of the complainant resides at Patna and the native village of the plaintiffs father is Nawada and in no case the Court at Bhabhua in the district of Kaimur has got jurisdiction to try the case. The complaint has filed this case at Bhabhua just to manipulate, as one of her uncle is a Bench clerk of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

3. Petitioners counsel has stated that the petitioner has sought for transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Bhabhua stating that under Section 177 Cr PC any Court within the sessions division at Patna may have jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly the case should be transferred to Patna.

4. Counsel appearing for the complainant opposite party No. 2 has on the other hand submitted that paragraph -4 of the complaint petition will indicate that the complainant after being tortured came to Bhabhua alongwith her children and she was treated at Bhabhua. She is residing at Bhabhua and going through the mental tension and torture there only. She is continuing to suffer mental agony or torture as a result of the act done by her husband and her relatives at Bhabhua subsequent to leaving her matrimonial home. Considering this fact the Bhabhua Court has jurisdiction to try the case as provided under Section 179 Cr PC.

5. Section 179 of the Cr PC reads as follows :

179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. "When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensured, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensured."

6. Section 179 Cr PC is in the nature of exception to general rule that every offence shall be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. This section provides that an act is an offence by reason of section which has ensured, the offence may be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the act was committed or where the act has ensued where the wife has been forced to leave her husband or the in-laws house due to torture. Leaving of the house is direct result or consequence of conduct and are integral part of the act done. The complainant was tortured by the accused persons at Patna. She was assaulted and threatened by the accused persons due to which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. She was forced to meet unlawful demand of accused persons or to leave her matrimonial house. Lastly the accused persons forced the complainant to leave her matrimonial house. She was driven out of her matrimonial house with her children. All her belongings were taken away by the accused persons. Her father brought her to Bhabhua where she was treated for her mental and physical ailment.

7. Counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party No. 2 is residing at Bhabhua and that gives jurisdiction to the Bhabhua Court to try such nature of offence as provided unde