The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a complaint is determined by the place of occurrence, part of occurrence, or where the consequence ensued, as outlined in Sections 177, 178, and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. This is a petition for quashing the order, dated 03.11.2012, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in Complaint Case No. 563 of 2009 by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint case filed by Smt. Archana Devi, opposite party no. 2, alleging therein is that she married with the petitioner on 02.05.2008, and after the marriage she remain in sasural for three months and during the period she lived well in sasural and, thereafter, she was taken to Delhi by her husband and there she was kept by her husband for a month. It is, further, alleged that in Delhi, the brother of the complainant also lived. Further, allegation is that her husband used to demand rupees two lakhs from her brother and her brother gave rupees one lakh to her husband. It is, further, stated that thereafter her husband left her at Purnia and then gone to Delhi alone. It is, further, alleged that her brother has, again, gave rupees fifty thousand to her husband. It is, further, alleged that at the occasion of chhath her brother came to their house at Purnia, then, her husband made a call for money and, then, his brother gave rupees fifteen thousand to her mother-in-law. It is, further, alleged that on 25th December, 2008, all the accused persons demanded rupees two lakhs and a vehicle, then, the complainant, opposite party no. 2, forbid her brother to give money. It is alleged that thereafter the accused persons stopped her food, used to get her sleep out side the house and, further, used to abuse and assault. Thereafter, she informed her parents and when they came, then, she disclosed that the accused persons will kill her and get her husband married with another lady. It has, further, been contended that thereafter she was driven out after assault and her two attaches and gold chain snatched by her nanad (sister-in-law) and mother-in- law, then, she came to maike.

4. On the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses have been recorded and, thereafter, taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses on the complaint, the process were ordered to be issued against the accused persons for offence under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that taking into consideration the entire act of demand and subjecting cruelty as has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction either at Delhi or Purnia and no part of cause of action has arisen in Katihar, hence, and the Court at Katihar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance and has placed reliance on decisions reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C., 4286 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vrs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.), 2003(4) P.L.J.R., 528 (Lallan Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), 2007(3) P.L.J.R., 269 (Suresh Das Harijan Vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr.), (1997) 5 SCC, 30 (Sujata Mukherjee Vrs. Prashant Mukherjee) and (2007) 1 SCC, 262 (Manish Ratam Vrs. State of Madhaya Pradesh).

6. Perused the complaint. It is apparent that the marriage solemnized in 2008 and it is alleged that after the marriage she was taken to sasural at Purnia and from where the victim was taken to Delhi and so there is allegation of demand and subsequently she was taken back to Purnia and there at Purnia there is allegation of demand that when she asked her brother to not pay further amount, then, she was subjected to cruelty and ultimately there is allegation that she was abused, assaulted and driven out of her matrimonial house. Hence, taking into consideration all the act of torture took place in Purnia or Delhi and finally it is alleged that she left Purnia when she was driven out and then she came to paternal house at Katihar though t