1. The petitioners have filed this application against the order dated 29.10.1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Criminal Case No. 936/92 whereby the prayer made by the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the case, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, has been rejected The Learned Magistrate has also directed that the prayer made by the petitioners for dispensing their personal attendance, shall be considered, after they appear before him.

2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as also Shri G. Desai, Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the M.A. No.2 and this application is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself.

3. N.A. No.1 Sunita filed a complaint in the Court of C.J.M. Rajgarh stating therein that she is the resident of Rajgarh and the accused persons namely petitioner No.1 is her husband, petitioner No.2 is her father-in-law, petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 are her uncle-in-law, petitioner No.5 is her mother-in-law, petitioner No.6 is her aunt-in-law and petitioner No.7 is her sister-in-law and all of them are residents of Panipat in the State of Haryana. The complainant has further stated in her complaint that in May 1990 her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 according to their customs and in the marriage various presents including Sofa-set, television, Almirah and ornaments were given. It was further stated in the complaint that the husband at the instance of the other accused persons used to tell to the complainant to bring Rs. 20,000/- and on her refusal she was used to be assaulted. The complainant has further stated that in April, 1991, when she came to Rajgarh, she informed about the aforesaid demand made by her husband to her parents and they paid Rs. 10,000/- to her husband. The complainant thereafter stayed at Rajgarh for 3-4 months with her parents. When information came about the oath of the elder brother of her husband Tirath Singh, the complainant alongwith her father went to the her-in-laws' place and the father after leaving the complainant returned. After the return of the father, the accused persons started treating the complainant with cruelty and started beating her. Her husband used to scold her saying why she has not brought the scooter from her father's place and when the complainant answered that her father had to marry his other children, she was severely assaulted. She was also assaulted by her father-in-law, petitioner No.2, and uncle-in-laws, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Thereafter, other accused persons i.e. the mother-in-law, the aunt-in-law and sister-in-law also assaulted her and confined her in a room. She was not given food for 3-4 days and it was stated by the accused persons that they will marry their son after the complainant dies. Further allegation of the complainant was that all her belongings were taken away by the accused persons and she was threatened to be killed in case she wrote letter to her parents.

4. The case of the complaint further was that on 25.8.1992 her mother came to meet her and then she narrated the entire humiliation, torture and assault meted out to her by her in-laws. Her mother gave telegram to her father. On arrival of the complainant's father, she narrated to him that she may be taken to Rajgarh i.e. at her parents' house failing which the accused persons would kill her. The complainant returned to Rajgarh alongwith her parents.

5. After the cognizance was taken and processes were issued to the petitioners, they appeared in the Court of learned C.J.M. and filed an application that the cognizance taken by him is illegal as he lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Further prayer was made for dispensing their personal attendance u/s 205 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order has rejected both the prayers. The learned Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction to try the offence and postpone the hearing of the applicat