The court at the place where the acts of cruelty constituting the offenses under Sections 498A and 406 IPC or the part thereof are committed has jurisdiction to try the case, and not the court at the place where the complainant was left by the accused.

1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in revision whereby the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur in Cr. Regular Case No. 157/2009 whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.J.M. No. 2, Udaipur against the petitioners and two others for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 420 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . As per allegations levelled in the complaint , the complainant was an original resident of Udaipur. She alleged that after completing post graduation in Zoology, she started working in the Home Loan Department of I.C.I.C.I. Bank at a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is alleged that accused no. 2 and 3 i.e. Mahendra Kumar Saxena and Smt. Indira approached the complainant's parents at Udaipur and informed them that their son Manish Saxena had completed his M.B.B.S. degree from Russia and was doing private practice of Medicine at Kota and that they were desirous of marrying their son with the complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that due to the allurement given by the accused no. 2 and 3 i.e. Mahendra Kumar Saxena and Smt. Indira and believing their version that accused no. 1 Manish Saxena was a Doctor, the complainant's parents agreed to the proposal given by the accused to marry the complainant with Manish. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons told her parents that they were not in a position to bring their guests to Udaipur and thus, the marriage ceremonies would have to be performed at Kota. The complainant's parents in the hope of getting a good life partner for the complainant agreed to the proposal and accordingly Manish was married to the complainant at Kota City, Rajasthan on 6.2.2007 by performing Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage the complainant's relatives and her parents gave a large number of gifts, cash, ornaments etc. to the complainant as well as the accused persons. The complainant alleged that on the second day of the wedding, the complainant's parents and other relatives left Kota. The articles which had been given to the complainant as gifts in the marriage was taken by accused no. 3 and 4 on the pretext of showing the same to the neighbours. On that very day the accused Indira and Anjali allegedly taunted the complainant that no worthwhile articles had been given in the marriage. The complainant was specifically taunted that a Colour T.V., Sofa Set, Washing Machine and Gold Ornaments were not given to the mother in law and sister in law. When the complainant tried to speak in the presence of neighbours she was maltreated. In the night, all the four accused approached the complainant and forcibly took away her costly clothes, ornaments, cash etc. telling her that they would be given to her as and when required and that she would not be able to take care of these valuables. The complainant allegedly believing the words of the accused handed over the same to the accused no. 2 and 3. She further alleged that thereafter, on numerous auspicious occasions, festivals etc. the complainant asked for being provided with her ornaments etc. for wearing but the accused refused to do so. The complainant was informed that the ornaments had been kept mortgaged for repaying some loan. She was also told that she should ask her parents to arrange for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and ornaments for mother and daughter i.e. the accused no. 3 and 4 and Colour T.V., Sofa Set, Washing Machine etc. were also demanded. The complainant kept on tolerating this harassment with the hope that with passage of time , the accused would st