ORDER 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. 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 application for dispensing with their attendance till their appearance before the Court. 6. 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 application for dispensing with their attendance till their appearance before the Court. 6. Shri Jai Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that according to the complaint lodged itself the act of the cruelty was committed on the complainant at Panipat and in that view of the matter the learned C.J.M. had no jurisdiction to try the offence at Rajgarh. He submits that under section 177 Cr.P.C. every offence ordinarily has to be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. According to submission of Shri Singh the act of cruelty was committed at Panipat which is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Rajgarh and, therefore, the learned Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. 7. Shri Desai appearing on behalf of the non-applicant No.2 has submitted that the act of the cruelty does not come to an end after the assault was made by the accused-persons but continued as the wife was forced to leave her matrimonial home and to stay at her parents' place at Rajgarh and, therefore, the' learned Magistrate at Rajgarh had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. The submissions of Shri Desai is that the offence is a continuing offence and in the view of the matter the learned Magistrate at Rajgarh will have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence and the provisions of section 178 (C) clothe the Magistrate at Rajgarh, with such power. 8. Shri Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kulwant Singh and others v. Kanta Rani IV (1994) CCR 2460. The learned Judge in the said judgment has held as follows:- "Whatever act of cruelty were committed towards the respondent were at the merital home of the respondent. For these acts, only the Courts at Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to try the offence. I, thus, accept the argument of the learned counsel that the complaint filed at Kapurthala for offence u/section 498-A IPC was not competent. 9. For these acts, only the Courts at Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to try the offence. I, thus, accept the argument of the learned counsel that the complaint filed at Kapurthala for offence u/section 498-A IPC was not competent. 9. The word 'cruelty', in my opinion, does not only relate to physical assault made to the wife by her in-laws. The legislature in its wisdom has explained the expression 'cruelty' which in the present context means harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her, to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. According to the allegations of the complainant, she was firstly ill treated, coerced, to meet the demand of dowry and later on was assaulted for not meeting the demand of scooter. She was thereafter sent to her parent's place and in my opinion the harassment continued at Rajgarh. In my opinion, she was harassed at Panipat to meet the demand of dowry and scooter and was forced to leave her matrimonial home and stay at her parents' place at Rajgarh. Thus, the harassment continued because of failure by her relation to meet the demand. 10. I am of the view that the wife having been left at her parents' place by the accused persons either with the object to meet the demand of dowry or because of wife's failure to meet the said demand, in both the cases the act of the accused person comes within the mischief of cruelty and in both the situation harassment continues. 11. Once it is held that the harassment continues at the place of residence of her father where the complainant is residing at the time of filing of the complainant, I am firmly of the view that the offence is a continuing one and in view of section 178 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which inter alia provides that where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 12. 12. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Vijai Ratan Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and another (1988 Cri.L.J. 1581) wherein the learned Judge has held as follows :- "Rather, this harassment seems to be continued one. It started when demand for dowry was made outside Ghaziabad and it has continued when she is not being called from Ghaziabad and she has been left there in order to get the dowry. So the offence continues to be committed or it may be possible to say that the offence was partly committed outside Ghaziabad when she was mal-treated and it continues to be at Ghaziabad where she has been left and is not being called. So it seems that the Courts at Ghaziabad should have jurisdiction to try the offence of cruelty." 13. For the reasons stated above I respectfully dissent from the view taken by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Case of Ku/want Singh and others v. Kanta Rani (supra). 14. The result of the aforesaid discussions leaves me to conclude that the learned Magistrate at Rajgarh had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and proceed with the case. 15. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate postponing the hearing of the application filed by the petitioner for dispensing their personal appearance till their appearance in the Court, calling for my interference in the present case. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is summarily dismissed.