Judgment S.P. Sinha, J. Both these applications being closely connected with the incident, have been heard together and are being disposed by this order. 2. The facts giving rise to these two applications are that the Pirbahore Police in the district of Patna, having got confidential information that the petitioner, who is the proprietor of a hotel run in the name of Ajanta Hotel in Govind Mitra Road, one of the quarters of the town of Patna, was misbehaving with a minor girl in the hotel premises, the officer-in-charge of the said police station went to the hotel and found a great deal of commotion in the locality. He also found the petitioner sleeping naked with a naked girl in room no. 7 on the second floor of the hotel. The door of the said room was wide open and the actions of the petitioner were visible from outside. Both, the said girl and the petitioner were taken in custody. The girl then gave a fardbeyan in which she stated that her name was Nagina Kumari, daughter of Jodhan Ram, deceased resident of Kalyanpur, Police Station Katra District Muzaffarpur. She gave out her age to be about 16 years. She stated the manner in which she was enticed away from her home by a woman by the name of Premshila Devi. According to the girl, she was brought to Patna from her home by the said Premshila Devi. From Patna she was taken to Masaurhi where she was kept in the house of a Pasi. From there Premshila again brought her back; to Patna and at the Mahendru Steamer Ghat the said Premshila Devi sold her for a sum of Rs.1,000/- to a young man belonging to Balia district. On account of the great resentment shown by the girl Nagina Kumari, some of the passengers at the steamer ghat intervened. The petitioner Bishwanath Prasad was also one of the passengers who came to her rescue at the said ghat. The petitioner then kept her in his house and even got her treated when she fell ill. After she recovered from her illness which took more than a month, the petitioner Bishwanath Prasad started using the girl for immoral purposes. The occurrence on the night of the 6th of November, 1971 was one such occurrence of sexual intercourse by the petitioner Bishwanath Prasad with the said girl. 3. After she recovered from her illness which took more than a month, the petitioner Bishwanath Prasad started using the girl for immoral purposes. The occurrence on the night of the 6th of November, 1971 was one such occurrence of sexual intercourse by the petitioner Bishwanath Prasad with the said girl. 3. The officer-in-charge of the Pirbahore Police Station filed a petition of complaint addressed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate Sadar, Patna, alleging offence under section 290 or the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be called the Code) against the petitioner and the said girl, on which cognizance has been taken by the said Sub-divisional Magistrate and the case is pending in the court of a Judicial Magistrate, Patna. Criminal Miscellaneous 789 of 1976 arises out of this matter against taking cognizance of an offence under section 290 of the Code. 4. As stated, Nagina Kumari bad made fardbeyan before the officer-in-charge of the Perbahore police station. It is not very clear, but possibly the fardbeyan was forwarded to Katra police station, where a case was instituted and on submission of the charge sheet cognizance under sections 366, 376 and 379 of the Code has been taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur against the petitioner as also against the said Premshila Devi. Since Premshila Devi is absconding, the case for those offences is proceeding only against the petitioner in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate at Muzaffarpur. Criminal Miscellaneous 1546 of 1974 is directed against this matter. 5. Mr. Prasad appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the complaint filed by the officer-in-charge of the Pirbahore police station before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna, no offence under section 290 of the Code is made out and consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 290 must be quashed. It is further submitted that, since offence under section 290 was not a cognizable offence, the manner in which the cognizance has been taken was wholly illegal and it must, therefore, be quashed. This argument, however, is only in the alternative in case his first contention is not accepted. 6. I think on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint no offence under section 290 of the Code is made out and consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for that offence must be quashed. 7. Section 290 is the penal clause for punishing commission of public nuisance. 6. I think on the facts disclosed in the petition of complaint no offence under section 290 of the Code is made out and consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for that offence must be quashed. 7. Section 290 is the penal clause for punishing commission of public nuisance. 'Public nuisance' has been defined in section 268 of the Code, which reads :- "A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any Act, or is guilty of an illegal commission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some inconvenience or advantage." The essential ingredients for constituting 'public nuisance' are that the Act, or commission must cause injury, danger or nuisance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity. The Act, complained of must be such as may cause injury, danger or annoyance to the people in general. In the Instant case, the Act, being performed in one of the rooms of a hotel, can not be said to be one which is being performed in a public place, which may cause injury, danger or annoyance to the people or the people in general. May be, that the door of the room in which that Act, was being performed was wide open, but all the same, the Act, was not being performed in a public place but in a room which was occupied by a particular Individual. In my opinion, therefore, on the facts stated in the petition of com• plaint no offence under section 290 of the Code is made out and, consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for that offence must be quashed. 8. Coming to the other petition Criminal Miscellaneous 1546 of 1974, here the offence of which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner are offences under sections 366, 376 and 379 of the Code. The only basis for taking cognizance of these three offences is the fardbeyan of the girl Nagina Kumari. 8. Coming to the other petition Criminal Miscellaneous 1546 of 1974, here the offence of which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner are offences under sections 366, 376 and 379 of the Code. The only basis for taking cognizance of these three offences is the fardbeyan of the girl Nagina Kumari. Reading the fardbeyan, it is clear, that, so far as the offence under section 366 and 379 are concerned, those offences are directly related to Premshila Devi. Petitioner has no hand in them. According to the fardbeyan the kidnapping of Nagina Kumari was committed by Premshila Devi. It was she who kidnapped Nagina Kumari from her home and brought her to Patna and from there she was taken to various other places. The fardbeyan does not at all disclose the complicity of the petitioner in the kidnapping of the said girl. Similarly, the fardbeyan does not disclose any complicity of the petitioner in stealing away the belongings of Nagina Kumari. That part of offence is again attributed to the said Premshila Devi. The cognizance of offence under section 366 and 376 taken against the petitioner has, therefore, no basis. The cognizance taken for those offences against the petitioner must therefore, be quashed. 9. Then remains the taking of cognizance under section 376 of the Code against the petitioner for which, I think a good basis is supplied by the fardbeyan lodged by Nagina Kumari. Now here the argument on behalf of the petitioner is on the basis of the fardbeyan the offence under section 376 of the Code, if at all committed, was committed at Patna and the Muzaffarpur court could not have jurisdiction to try that offence. 10. In my opinion, the argument is sound and must be accepted. On the basis of the fardbeyan, which is the sheet anchor for taking cognizance of the offence under the section 376 of the Code, the offence is said to have been committed at Patna and consequently that the Criminal courts at Patna had the jurisdiction to try that offence. In my opinion, the argument is sound and must be accepted. On the basis of the fardbeyan, which is the sheet anchor for taking cognizance of the offence under the section 376 of the Code, the offence is said to have been committed at Patna and consequently that the Criminal courts at Patna had the jurisdiction to try that offence. In fact, I have been at a loss to think as to how in spite of all that is stated in the fardbeyan, the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Muzaffarpur took cognizance of the offence" Since the taking of cognizance by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarpur is without jurisdiction, the cognizance of offence under section 376 taken by him against the petitioner must, therefore be quashed. 11. In the result both applications are allowed. I would, however, observe that, since an offence under section 376 of the Code is clearly disclosed on the facts stated in the fardbeyan, a case may be instituted in accordance with law before an appropriate authority at Patna. Application allowed.