1. - Instant Misc. Petition U/s 482 CrPC is directed against order dated 05/03/99 whereby Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No.3, Kota while rejecting application filed by petitioners U/s 177, CrPC, upheld its territorial jurisdiction for taking cognizance against them in Cr. Case No.386/98.

2. Manju Saxena-complainant filed criminal complaint before ACJM No.3, Kota on 07/05/98 for offences U/s 498-A & 406, IPC, against her husband and in-laws family members inter-alia alleging that her marriage was performed with Pankaj Saxena on 08/02/96 and after marriage, she started living in her matrimonial home at Aklera (Jhalawar) but owing to some in differences with her in-laws family on the pretext of demand of dowry, with which they were not satisfied as they felt it insufficient fulfilling their demands, which they were insisting upon more dowry, and torturing her and had not taken care despite she being pregnant - in course whereof, false allegations were imputed of foetus being of some other person, and she was turned out by the accused on 02/03/97 and she came to her parents' house at Kota; any how, on 05/01/98 she delivered a child and on the occasion of child birth also, sufficient articles were gifted to fulfill their demand of dowry but were not satisfied.

3. Complaint was sent for investigation to the police U/s 156(3) CrPC, on which FIR No.91/98 was registered at PS Mahila (Kota) on 19/05/98 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against petitioners.

4. However, petitioners moved application U/s 177 CrPC, alleging therein that according to the charge sheet, incident as alleged has taken place at Aklera (Jhalawar), therefore, the Court at Kota has no local jurisdiction to try the complaint. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 05/03/99 rejected their application holding that offence alleged in complaint is a continuing offence even while complainant residing at Kota, she has been mentally tortured owing to their act; and thus, Court at Kota has a territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Hence this petition.

5. Counsel for petitioner submits that complaint, which according to them is totally false, yet as alleged therein, discloses that the incident of torture or demand of dowry took place at Aklera (Jhalawar) and no part of cause of action has accrued in district Kota and that apart it is not a continuing offence and merely because, her residing at parents' house at Kota will not give her a cause of action claiming territorial jurisdiction to file complaint at Kota and that being so, it is barred by Ss.177 & 178, CrPC. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004(8) SCC 100 : 2004-05 (Suppl) Cr. L.R. (SC) 322 further considered in recent decision in Manish Ratan v. State of MP, (2007(1) SCC 262) .

6. No one has appeared on behalf of complainant despite service, Public Prosecutor supported the order and submits that learned trial Magistrate has given cogent reasons in holding that the case can be tried in Kota as cause of action has accrued to her while she is residing at her parents' house at Kota.

7. I have considered the submissions made and examined material on record. As per complaint, itself, Manju Saxena (complainant) was residing at her matrimonial house at Aklera (Jhalawar) and left out her on 02/03/97 complaint was lodged on 07/05/98 at Kota. Even from a bare perusal of complaint imputing allegations of cruelty and torture or demand of dowry which all were caused in course of her stay at her matrimonial home in Aklera and on 05/05/98, when she asked the accused to return back her Stridhan, they refused to do so. Thus, offence alleged in the complaint cannot be said to have been committed wholly or in part within local jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Kota.

8. Scope of Ss.177 to 186, CrPC has been considered in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (supra) where