The jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials, as provided under Sections 177, 178, and 179 of the CrPC, was discussed in the context of a continuing offence committed in multiple local areas.

1. - The only issue for consideration in this criminal mis petition is whether criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 at Ba against the petitioners are maintainable or not for lack of jurisdiction?

2. Brief facts of the case are that the daughter of respondent No.2 go married with petitioner No.l on 27.4.2001 at village Srisela, Tehsil Bali, Distric Pali as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. According to the respondent No.2, at the time of engagement of his daughter on 22.6.1998, he had gifted Rs. 1,00,000/- ir cash, gold chain, gold ring, wristwatch and clothes. Thereafter, at the time oi marriage of brother of the petitioner No.l, he had gifted clothes of? 20,000/-. It is alleged in the complaint that when the respondent No.2 had asked for fixing the date of marriage of his daughter with the petitioner No.l, the petitioners raised a demand of clothes amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- in dowry and that was fulfilled by him and at the time of marriage on 27.4.2001. It is further alleged that his relatives had gifted various things to his daughter and after marriage, his daughter went to the house of the petitioners at Beawar. After about a week, the petitioner No.l asked the daughter of the respondent No.2 to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- and one Maruti Car from her parents. The petitioner No.l also threatened that if the said demand is not fulfilled, he would remarry and leave the daughter of respondent No.2 to her parental home. It is also alleged that father-in-law, mother-in-law and other accused-persons always used to say that the respondent No.2 has given very less dowry and also not given Rs. 1,00,000/-and a car and with these demands, they tortured her and at once, the petitioner No.l has even assaulted his daughter. It is further alleged that five days after marriage when accused No.9 returned to her village Srisela, the other accused-persons continuously demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and a Maruti Car through accused No.9 and pressurised the other relatives to fulfill the demand of dowry. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the daughter of respondent No.2 was unable to sustain the physical and mental torture, she informed the respondent No.2 to bring her back and then he along with his wife went to Beawar and requested the in-laws of his daughter not to torture her, then at that time also, the petitioners had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and one new Maruti Car. The respondent No.2 was asked by the petitioners that when he would be in a position to fulfill the demand of dowry, he may inform them and thereafter, they would bring his daughter. It is also alleged in the complaint that near relatives of the respondent No.2 went to Beawar and also requested the petitioners to bring her back to Beawar but the petitioners had stated that until and unless the demand of dowry is fulfilled, they would not bring the daughter of the complainant back. It is alleged that the petitioners have refused to return the 'Streedhan' of his daughter. The respondent No.2 has further alleged that on 11.1.2004, the petitioners had informed the respondent No.2 on telephone that if their demand of dowry is not fulfilled, the petitioner No.l will remarry.

3. With these allegations, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, who in turn, forwarded the said complaint to the police and the police has registered an F.I.R. in respect of the complaint and thereafter filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners before the Trial Court and the Trial Court took the cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C.

4. The petitioners moved an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the Trial Court at Bali has no jurisdiction to try the case because as per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the alleged offences were committed at Beawar. The application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioners had been rejected by the Trial Court v