Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint case no. 340 of 1999, under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. In the aforesaid case, after taking cognizance of offence on a complaint case in accordance with provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter considering the material evidence on record, he has issued the process i.e. summoning order in accordance with the provisions of under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

4. The main ground on which the order is challenged for quashing is that learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence on the complaint case because the alleged torturing and cruelty is alleged to have been committed at Haridwar or Delhi which alone have jurisdiction and not the Court of C.J.M. at Ballia.

5. It is also contended that two minors have been implicated in the matter on which ground also it has been challenged and prayed that proceedings be quashed under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that all the alleged torturing has taken place at Haridwar and the husband Basant Kumar was in Job at Delhi. As such, he vehemently argued that it is the Court at Haridwar and Delhi which alone have jurisdiction and not the Court of C.J.M. at Ballia. Thus, there is jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the offence.

7. In this regard, It will be expedient to go through the provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. which laws down as follows :-

"Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."

8. Thus, as per the contention of learned counsel for the applicants, it is only the Court at Haridwar or Delhi which has jurisdiction to take cognizance and tried the case and not the Court of C.J.M. at Ballia.

9. In this connection, learned counsel for the opposite party rebutted this contention and submitted that section 177 Cr.P.C. is a general provision which makes general provision for the ordinary place of inquiry and trial.

10. In this connection, it will be expedient to go further into other provisions which are mentioned in Chapter-13 of Cr.P.C. which deals with the jurisdiction of criminal court in inquiries and trials according to section 178 Cr.P.C. which lays down as follows :-

11. Place of inquiry or trial.

"( a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or ( b) where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or

( c) where an offence, is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or ( d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

12. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the offence under Section 4 98-A and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act i.e. torture for demand of dowry is continuing offence which has been committed in local areas of more than one District. The complaint when read as a whole discloses the fact that initially the marriage had been solemnized within the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Ballia, thereafter, the torture is alleged to have been made at Haridwar.

13. Learned counsel for the complainant further says that after one year of marriage, when her father came to meet her, the complainant narrated about the mal-treatment with her by family members of the husband. Again the father came at Haridwar with one counsel who was a relative and went to meet her, the mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law confined her in a room and had beaten her. Hence, they did not allow her father to meet her