The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 26.2.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No. 206(C) of 2006, summoning the accused-petitioners under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. While this application was filed on behalf of the four accused-petitioners, namely, Nandu Mahto, Dinesh Mahto, Mahesh Mahto and Rita Devi, but due to the death of the accused-petitioner, Nandu Mahto, this application in respect to him has been rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.6.2010 as having become infructuous. As such, this application survives only on behalf of the remaining three accused-petitioners.

3. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no. 2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No. 206(C) of 2006 against Nandu Mahto [(father-in-law) since dead], Dinesh Mahto (brother-in-law), Rita Devi (sister-in-law) and Mahesh Mahto (brother-in-law), with allegation that her marriage was performed with Ganesh Mahto, son of Nandu Mahto (since dead) on 12th of May, 2002 according to Hindu customs. At the time of her marriage, her father had gifted clothes and utensils worth Rs. 5,000/-, ornaments worth Rs. 15,000/and Rs. 51,000/- in cash. After the marriage, she went to her sasural and stayed there for about six days. later on, after Durga Puja, she went to her sasural in second marriage. As her husband used to do the job of labourer, therefore, in that connection he generally used to live at Bombay. After reaching her sasural after second marriage, her Sasur, Bhaisur, Gotni and Dewar, used to put pressure on her to bring in cash Rs. 25,000/- and a colour television from her Maika, but her father was unable to fulfill their demand. Due to non-fulfillment of demand, all the accused started to torture and harass to the opposite party no. 2 in various modes including by not providing proper food and clothes by saying that if she will not bring the aforesaid articles from her Maika, she will be killed. Tasar Devi, the mother-inlaw of the opposite party no. 2, tried to intervene, but they were adamant on their demand and, ultimately, she was removed from her matrimonial house, after snatching her personal belongings by the accused persons and she reached her Maika and narrated all the incidents to her parents.

4. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no. 2, Mithun Devi alias Mithu Devi, on inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, summoned the accused-petitioners through the impugned order dated 26.2.2007 finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The sole argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that from the complaint petition, it is apparent that the occurrence as alleged had taken place in sasural of the opposite party no. 2, Mithun Devi alias Mthu Devi, in District-Lakhisarai and, as such, the Court of Begusarai had no jurisdiction to summon• the accused -petitioners with respect to the alleged occurrence said to have taken place in the district of Lakhisarai. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a decision of a Bench of this Court rendered in Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Another, 2009(4) PLJR 189.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is continuing in nature and, therefore, the Court of Begusarai, had jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioners as the opposite party no. 2 used to reside at her Maika situated in the district of Begusarai after the alleged occurrence.

7. As in the present case, the issue is confined only to territorial jurisdiction about the criminal proceedings initiated by t