Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal case being J. C. I. case No. 248 of 1888 in which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, has taken cognizance under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that Jamshedpur Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this case and, as such, the order taking cognizance under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code is without jurisdiction because the allegation of torture meted out to the lady-opposite party No. 1 is confined only to Rourkella and not at Jamshedpur. 3. On the other hand, Mrs. Jaya, Roy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 has submitted that the marriage had taken place at Jamshedpur and, thereafter, the complainant had gone to her Sasural at Rourkella where different types of tortures were meted out to her as a result of which she had to leave her in laws place and come back to her fathers place at Jamshedpur where the consequences of the offences committed at Rourkella ensued. Therefore, the criminal Court at Jamshedpur had jurisdiction to entertain this case. 4. Section 179 of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. It says that offence can be tried where an act is done or consequence ensures. 5. In this case, it is the admitted position that opposite party No. 1 is the wedded wife of petitioner No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 had filed a complaint case in which cognizance was taken under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Penal Code which was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur. It is also the admitted position that the marriage was performed at Jamshedpur and, thereafter, opposite party No. 1 was taken to Rourkella and there different types of tortures by different methods were meted out to her at her husbands and in-laws place at Rourkella as a result of which she had to leave her matrimonial home at Rourkella and had to come to Jamshedpur in the house of her father and she is residing there. 6. 6. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it can be prima facie, safely concluded at this stage that different types of tortures and illtreatments were meted out to opposite party No. 1 at Rourkella as a consequence of which she had to leave her matrimonial Home at Rourkella and shift to her fathers house at Jamshedpur. She could not have left her matrimonial house, if she would not have been subjected to illtreatment and torture. According to the allegations, therefore, the offence was, undoubtedly, committed at Rourkella but its consequences had ensued at Jamshedpur where opposite party No. 1 is residing at present at her fathers house. She is not expected to leave her in-laws house if she would not have been tortured in that fashion. 7. The whole scheme of the Act is to provide relief to the weaker section and it is never expected that she is required to file a case at the place where in-laws are residing from where she is alleged to have been driven lout which will frustrate the nature of the relief which she is likely to get in the event of her success in the case. Therefore, leaving of the place at Rourkella and residing at Jamshedpur can be taken to include within even the word consequence which resulted in parting company from her wedded life and residing at Jamshedpur in her fathers house. 8. In this view of the matter, Jamshedpur Criminal Court had jurisdiction to try such nature of offence and dispose of the same. 9. Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also relevant in this context which can also be taken notice of It says : "Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage or the wife by the Ist marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence." 10. In this case opposite party No. 1 has taken up her residence and abode in the house of her father at Jamshedpur as a result of the offence which was committed at Rourkella. She is at present residing at Jamshedpur. She is, admittedly, the first wife. 11. Section 182 (2) of the Cr. In this case opposite party No. 1 has taken up her residence and abode in the house of her father at Jamshedpur as a result of the offence which was committed at Rourkella. She is at present residing at Jamshedpur. She is, admittedly, the first wife. 11. Section 182 (2) of the Cr. P. C. has also conferred jurisdiction to Courts to try such type of offences where the first married lady has taken up the "permanent residence". The present residence of opposite party No. 1, in this case, includes the word permanent residence for the purpose of jurisdiction as she is not expected to go back to her in-laws place unless the dispute is settled. In this circumstance, Section 182 of the Code also, confers jurisdiction to Jamshedpur Criminal Court to try the nature of the offence involved in this case for which cognizance has been taken. 12. Having considered all the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am satisfied that the Criminal Court at Jamshedpur had jurisdiction to inquire into and hold trial for such nature of offence which are involved in this case, under the facts and circumstances available in this case. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is, accordingly dismissed.