1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the informant.

2. Petitioners pray for quashing order dated 4.1.2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in complaint case no. 3176 of 2005, whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, has taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A and summoned the accused petitioners to face trial.

3. The complainant stated that she married petitioner no.1, namely, Naresh Prasad Singh alias Naresh Singh in the year 1999. The second marriage (Gowna) was performed after a year. Thereafter, she went to Jabalpur where her husband worked as Commercial Clerk in the Railways. The elder brother of her husband, one B.N. Singh also worked as Accounts Clerk in Jamui. The accused persons kept her well for sometime but thereafter her husband and other in-laws began to torture her for non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle, colour television etc. The complainant anyhow after mortgaging his land paid Rs. 5,000/- for purchase of motorcycle. However as other demands were not fulfilled, accused persons continued to torture her. She also alleged that her husband has affair with another woman and in state of intoxication even used to utter her name. As the complainant feared threat to her life, she left Jabalpur and came to her parents house in Jamui. Thereafter she lodged this case in the year 2000.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order taking cognizance on the ground that Jamui Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even. The complaint case does not disclose that any offence was committed within territorial jurisdiction of the Jamui Court, as entire occurrence is alleged to have been committed at Jabalpur. Learned counsel relied upon judgments rendered in case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, reported in (2004)8 SCC 100, Manish Ratan and Others vs. State of M.P. and Another, reported in (2007)1 SCC 262 as well as in case of Bhure Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008(3) Supreme Court 367 and a bench decision of the Court in case of Md. Kalim & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Another, reported in 2009(1) PLJR 111.

5. He further submits that order of cognizance is also barred under Section 468(2) of the Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed under Section 498A I.P.C. and cognizance was also taken under Section 498A I.P.C. The complainant admits in her S.A. that she left Jabalpur in year 2001 and came to her parents house in the district of Jamui and has continuously remained there. Learned counsel submits that the maximum punishment under Section 498A I.P:C. is 3 years, as such, application u/s 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. should have been filed within 3 years of the offence last committed in 2001. Thus order of cognizance under Section 498A I.P.C. on 4.1.2006 after more than four years is time barred. He further submits that there was no application for condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for opp. party no.2 submits that Jamui Court has jurisdiction to try the instant complaint case. He submits that there is allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had affairs with another woman whose name he used to take under influence of drinks. Thus case would also come under purview of Section 494 I.P.C. He submits that a complaint u/s 498A I.P.C. can be filed at any of three places.

(i) Firstly, where the offence was committed.

(ii) Secondly, where the couple last lived.

(iii) Thirdly, where the complainant permanently resides.

7. In support of contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision reported in case of Rabindra Kaur vs. Gurmit Singh, reported in 1985 Cri. L.J. 601. He submits that when a woman is subjected to torture and cruelty, she can maintain complaint even at her parents place, though no offence may have committed there. In support of contention, learned counsel has relied upon decision rendered in Arun Khanna vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1994(1) PLJR 513, Pramod