1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 864 of 04, whereby the application filed by applicant accused under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected, hence applicant preferred this revision before this Court.

2. Facts of the prosecution case in short are that complainant Ramnik Kaur who is resident of Ranchi (Jharkhand) was married to the applicant on 28.5.200 I. The marriage of Ramnik Kaur was solemnized with applicant Gurmeet Singh on 28.5.200 I at Patna. The applicant is permanent resident of S.P. Mukherjee Road, Murgasal. Asansole, District Vardhaman (W.B.). After the marriage she had started living with her husband, mother- in-law Surjeet Kaur, sister in law Ravindra Kaur and Balvinder Kaur at Asansole. She had lodged a first information report at Mahila Police Station, Indore on 2.8.2004 in which it has been alleged that just from the second day of the marriage her husband Gurmeet Singh, her mother in law Surjeet Kaur, sister in law Ravindra Kaur and Balvinder Kaur started treating her with cruelty and demanded a Santro Car and Rs. 50.000/-. They have started beating the complainant and subjected to her with cruelty. In the meanwhile, complainant became pregnant. Her mother in law and sister in laws including her husband told her that she should go to her parental home for delivery, as they are not in a position to bear the expenses. The applicant husband Gurmeet Singh also dispute the legitimacy of the child in womb. She was sent to her parental home. She gave birth to a child. Even after intimation her husband and in-laws did not take care of her and none of them have come to see her at Indore.

3. The complainant and her mother went to the matrimonial house along with the relatives and tried to pacify the matter. But the applicant husband, and in-laws again started beating the complainant and demanded a Santro Car and cash amount. Her mother came there and she was sent back to her parental house in October, 2003. Ever since then she is residing at Indore. The applicant husband and her in-laws did not take care of her and child. In the meantime her mother also died.

4. On the basis of the FIR lodged by complainant an offence under section 498A, 406 and 506 of the Penal Code has been registered at Police Station (Mahila Thana) Indore against the applicant husband. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 864 of 2004.

5. During trial, an application under section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code was tiled before the trial Court stating that the alleged offence has been committed only at Asansol (WE) and no part of it has been committed at Indore. Therefore Court at Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present offence against the applicant.

6. The trial Magistrate, after hearing arguments of both the sides, rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 2.3.2005. It is this order which is impugned in this revision.

7. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Jaisingh with Shri Vivek Singh, Advocate, has submitted that the act of cruelty as alleged by complainant has been committed only at Asansol (WB) and not at Indore. There is not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Indore in the FIR and in the statement recorded by Police under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. That being so the logic of section 178 (c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied. He placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the apex Court reported in the matter of Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police. Chennai, [AIR 2004 SC 4286].

8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant was earlier resided at Ranchi (Jharkhand). The marriage was solemnized at Patna (Bihar) and after