1. This is an application filed under-section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 6th/8th January, 2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Sono P S Case No. 102/2006, G. R. No. 1409 of 2006 taking cognizance of the offence under sections 498A, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Priyanka Kumari lodged FIR on 21.10.2006 against her husband Shailesh Kumar and 4 others at Sono Police Station in the district of Jamui stating therein that she was married to Shailesh Kumar, son of the petitioners of Mohalla - Bajla Chauk, Bajarangi Gali, Deoghar on 22nd January 2006. A sum of Rs.2 lacs in cash, ornaments etc. were given. After marriage she went to her Sasural and started conjugal life. Thereafter her husband took her to Bangalore where he was working as Assistant Manager in Integra Micro System Pvt. Limited. She lived there 3-4 months happily and thereafter her husband asked her to bring a sum of Rs. 5 lacs from her father for purchasing a house there. On her refusal her husband abused, assaulted and thrashed her on the ground. She sent a letter to her parents at Sono and also informed her uncle who lives at Bangalore. Her father contacted Shri Niwas Barnwal and Seema Devi who were Agua in the marrage and they asked her father to manage money failing which anything might happen. Thereafter her parents and grandfather came to Bangalore and made unsuccessful attempt to pacify the matter. After 2-3 days her parents returned to village Sono but her grandfather stayed in the house of his another son at Bangalore. After 15days her husband repeated the demand. Thereafter she informed her father in law and mother in law who are petitioners here about the illegal demand and requested them to come over to Bangalore. They came to Bangalore but they also asked her to meet the demand. Her father in law asked to kill her by setting fire with petrol. Her mother in law started assaulting her by catching lock of hair. Her husband brought a dibba of petrol and tried to set fire. However, on her cries, they released her but her husband got something written on a blank piece of paper. Thereafter they pushed her out of the house directing her to bring a sum of Rs.5 lacs, retaining her ornaments, clothes etc. She went to the house of her uncle at Bangalore and thereafter returned to her parents house. Alter investigation charge sheet has been submitted under sections 498A, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Cognizance of the offence was accordingly taken by the impugned order.

3. The learned lawyer for the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the court of Jamui. He referred to the allegations contained in the first information report and submitted that all the occurrence of demand and atrocities took place at Bangalore. He submitted that no occurrence took place in Jamui and hence the court of Jamui has got no jurisdiction. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 262 and also in the case of Y. Abraham Ajuh and others V/s. inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 100. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be quashed.

4. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the court of Jamui has very well jurisdiction in the case. He submits that marriage took place in Village Somo in the district of Jamui where a sum of Rs.2 lacs, ornaments etc. were given. He submits that the ornaments, clothes etc. given to the informant by her parents at the time of marriage at Sono were retained by the husband of the informant at Bangalore. So, he submits that there is breach of trust and hence the jurisdiction over the case lies in the court of Jamui as well as in the court of Bangalore.

5. This is not the case of breach of trust. This is a case fo