Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

This reference, under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), has been made by learned District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, through letter No. 678, dated 16.08.2012, addressed to the Registrar General of this Court. The reference has arisen out of Cr. Revision No. 113 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, in which an order of learned Judicial Magistrate, dismissing a complaint petition, under Section 203 of the Code, was under challenge.

2. Following is the question of law, which has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge, Siwan, for decision of this Court:-

"(i) Whether mental agony of an estranged wife ousted from Sasural and living in a different district can be said to be continuation of dowry-torture (punishable under Section 498A I.P.C.) and whether it can be said to be consequence of the physical and mental torture given to her in Sasural.

(ii) Whether the court within whose territorial jurisdiction, such estranged wife is living has jurisdiction to take cognizance and try a case under Section 498A I.P.C. even where the demand of dowry and torture by accused persons is alleged to be committed in her Sasural situated in other district."

The necessity of reference by learned Sessions Judge, Siwan arose in view of two conflicting decisions of this Court; one in case of Dinesh Mahto v. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 107, and another in case of Bhagwati Prasad Kyal & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., dated 14.12.2011, passed in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 8726 of 2009 and another analogous case. Both the decisions are Single Bench decisions and in both the cases reliance has been place on a Supreme Court decision in case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100.

3. Faced with the situation that views expressed in the aforesaid two decisions of this Court were conflicting, which could not be reconciled, learned Sessions Judge, Siwan, has referred the question of law, under Section 395 (2) of the Code, for decision by this Court on the points so referred.

4. I have heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No. 2, at length. Before I proceed to answer the reference, I need to take note of brief facts of the case and the decisions rendered by this Court in cases of Dinesh Mahto (supra) and Bhagwati Prasad Kyal (supra).

5. A complaint petition was filed by the complainant, disclosing offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC"), alleging that after solemnization of her marriage with the accused, she went to her matrimonial home, situate in Gopalganj district, where she lived without any difficulty for about a year. The accused persons, thereafter, started ill-treating her, demanding dowry and torturing her therefore. The in-laws are also said to have attempted to kill her by burning. Thereafter, she came to her parental house, situate within the district of Siwan, and started living there. The said complaint petition was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Siwan. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwan dismissed the complaint petition recording that since no part of "cause of action" had arisen within the district of Siwan, the Court, at Siwan, did not have any territorial jurisdiction to try such case. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the complainant filed a revision application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Siwan, which gave rise to the aforesaid Cr. Revision No. 113 of 2012.

6. Before learned Sessions Judge, Siwan, the complainant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in case of Dinesh Mahto (supra), paragraph 13 of which reads thus :-

"13. From the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, it is no doubt that the harassment and cruelty as alleged was caused to the opposite party no. 2 at