Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for opposite party No.1 and Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

2. This application has been filed praying to quash the order dated 17.01.2017 in Complaint Case No.543 of 2010 (Rama Shankar vs. Jeetendra Kumar and others) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad whereby the discharge application of the applicants under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicants are as under:

(i) The applicants are residing at Delhi. The entire alleged offence took place at Delhi. Therefore, the court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to try the case.

(ii) No specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants herein who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and nanad of the sister of the opposite party No.2. He refers to the statement of the victim Seema Jaiswal filed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the application to submit that she has not even named the applicants herein for the allegation of dowry or any other allegation. The entire allegation has been levelled specifically against the husband namely Sri Jeetendra.

(iii) The complaint as well as the evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. shows that no specific allegation of demand of dowry has been made against the applicants herein rather specific allegations are only against the accused Jeetendra, who is husband.

(iv) Offence under Section 498A is not a continuing offence and, therefore, in the absence of any specific allegation of dowry against the applicants herein within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Allahabad, the court below was having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the charges are groundless. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Ratan and others vs. State of M.P. and another1 (para-12) is relied.

4. Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits as under:-

(i) Specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture within the jurisdiction of the concerned court below has been made in the complaint particularly in paragraphs-3, 4, 6 & 7.

(ii) Evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. also shows commission of offence by the applicants herein.

(iii) On the basis of evidences on record, it cannot be said that the allegations are groundless so as to attract the provisions of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

(iv) The charges have not yet been framed. The rejection of discharge application on the facts of the present case, is wholly justified.

(v) The offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and, therefore, the learned court below has the jurisdiction to try the case.

(vi) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Arun Vyas vs. Anita Vyas2 and the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others3, are relied.

(vii) The court concerned has lawfully rejected the discharge application inasmuch as the court cannot look in the matter beyond the limit provided under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has also relied upon the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ranvijay Prasad Deo vs. State of Jharkhand and another4, the judgments of this court in the case of Daya Shanker Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and others5, Yogeshwar Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and another6, Ghanshyam Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and another7, Prabhat Ranjan Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others8 and Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Premawati etc. vs. State of U.P. and another9. On the basis of these judgments, he further submitted that acts of the applicants constituted offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the offence was a continuing offence and as such the discharge application of the applicants has been lawfully rejec