1. Sole petitioner Upendra Rai has challenged the order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the SDJM, Vaishali at Hajipur in Complaint Case No. C1-1607 of 2012, "Meena Devi vs. Upendra Rai & Ors." where by and where under petitioner along with others has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Because of the fact that basically it relates with marital discord on account thereof, this Court had given so many adjournments even after referring the matter to High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, unfortunately, by the action of the parties the desirability in getting revival of conjugal life could not restored. Lastly, the matter has been heard on merit.

3. The O.P. No.2, Meena Devi filed complaint petition narrating the event that she was married with Upendra Rai about six years ago. At the time of marriage her parents had given cash appertaining to Rs. 51,000/-, ornaments, furniture, household articles appertaining to rupees one lac. After marriage, she came to her Sasural where she stayed. One month after the stay, the accused persons began to harass her on the score that at the time of marriage her parents had not fulfilled their desire and so, they coerce to bring one T.V., motorcycle and cash appertaining to rupees one lac to do business. As, complainant protested, she was being regularly assaulted. Sometimes foods were not supplied. She conveyed her miseries to her parents whereupon her father rushed, convened panchayati wherein the accused persons undertook to keep the complainant in congenial, peaceful, pleasant atmosphere but at each occasion, after due interval, she was treated in same manner and lastly, after snatching all her belongings, she was kicked out from her Sasural. After her arrival at Naihar, she had disclosed her woe to her parents, brother who took her to police station but as the police declined to register a case instructing to file complaint case, on account thereof, the same has been filed.

4. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the court of SDJM under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur for holding an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after concluding the same, the learned lower court by the order impugned summoned the petitioner and others on account thereof, challenged the same under instant petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenge the order impugned on sole ground of lack of jurisdiction. To substantiate such plea, it has been submitted that from narration of the complaint petition as well as statement the witnesses, it is evident that whatever allegation has been attributed by the complainant which she faced during her stay at her Sasural which lies within the original jurisdiction of Saran district and so, the court of Saran at Chapra is only competent enough to entertain and proceed with the trial. Therefore, the Vaishali court lacks jurisdiction and on account thereof, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Y. Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2009 (2) East.Cr.C 419, Mumtaz Bano Arzoo & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2010 (1) East.Cr.C 243, Santokh Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2010 (1) East.Cr.C 154, Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) East.Cr.C 231 (SC), Avinash Kumar Singh @ Avinash Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2015 (4) East.Cr.C 738 (Pat.), Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav & Ors. with Raj Kumar Yadav @ Raj Kumar-1 & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2015 (4) East.Cr.C 741 (Jhr.), and submitted that consistent view happens to be that the offence of 498A IPC is not a continuing offence therefore, the prosecution should be launched