The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainant to show that the accused had committed the offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court for the case to be tried.

Prashant Kumar, J.

In this application, petitioners pray for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. C-2064 of 2011. Petitioners further pray for quashing of order dated 23.01.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. against the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case for the purpose of this case lie in a narrow compass. The Opposite Party no.2 has filed a complaint alleging therein that she married with the petitioner no.3, Amit Kapila on 25.08.2010 at Section-III Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of O. P.No.2 gave ornaments, clothes, furnitures, utensils and cash etc. as gift. It is further stated that after said marriage O.P.no.2 went to the house of her in-laws. It is further alleged that within a week of the marriage, petitioners started demanding Rs.5 lacs and a car from the parents of O.P. No. 2. Because of the aforesaid demand, father of O.P.no.2 died due to shock. It is further stated that after lapse of some time of the death of father of O.P.no.2, petitioners again started torturing O.P.no.2 for the aforesaid demand. It is stated that because of the said torture and demand O.P.no.2 came to Ranchi and started living with here mother. It is stated that on 28.05.2011 all the accused persons came to Ranchi and participated in a Panchayati. During said panchayati, it is mutually agreed between the parties that the demand raised by the petitioners will be fulfilled in instalments. It is further stated that on that day mother of O.P.no.2 gave Rs.1 lac in cash to the petitioners, thereafter, petitioners took the complainant/O.P.No.2 to their house situated at Noida (Uttar Pradesh). It is further stated that when O.P.no.2 reached at Noida, petitioners again started raising demand for payment of balance amount and when complainant's mother refused to pay the said amount due to her financial condition, petitioners started torturing and harassing O.P.no.2, hence present complaint filed. It appears that learned J.M. Ist class, Ranchi recorded statement of O.P.No.2 on Solemn Affirmation and also examined mother of O.P.no.2 as inquiry witness No.1. Thereafter, learned Magistrate by his order dated 23.01.2012 took cognizance against the petitioners under section 498A of the I.P.C. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in this application.

3. Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of complaint petition and statement of complainant on solemn affirmation, it is clear that allegation of harassment and/or cruelty against O.P.No.2 took place at Noida (Uttar Pradesh). Under the said circumstance, as per section 177 of the Cr. P.C. the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present case. Thus, the impugned order as well as entire criminal proceeding initiated by the learned court below is an abuse of the process of court. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained.

4. On the other hand, Sri Mahesh Tewari and learned Add. P.P. appearing for the opposite parties, submit that it is stated by the complainant at paragraph no.11 of the complaint petition, as well as in her statement on solemn affirmation that petitioners came to Ranchi and demanded dowry and they took part payment of dowry at Ranchi. Thus, the learned court below had jurisdiction to try this case according to the provisions of section 178 of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly, it is submitted that present application filed by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.

5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.

6. As noticed above, in the instant case, O.P.no.2 alleged that she has been harassed for demand of dowry in her in-laws house situated at Noida (U.P.). There is no allegation in the complaint petition, as well as in the statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and/or statement of m