JUDGMENT A.L. VAIDYA, J.—The sole paint to be disposed of in the present proceedings, pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter inquire and try the case as put up by the complainant. 2. The complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498-A/506/406 I PC against the accused-petitioners, who happened to be the husband of the complainant and close relatives of her husband. The complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan on 11-10 1995 as at the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant was residing within the jurisdiction of Solan District of Himachal Pradesh with her close relatives. 3. The facts which are not disputed in the present case are as under: 1. All the accused are residents of Nagoan Bazar, Tehsil Badkot, Distt. Uttarkashi, U.P. The alleged factum of cruelty took place in the house of parents-in-law of the complainant which was situated in Uttarkashi (UP.). 2. The parents of the complainant were residing and were permanent resident of Dak Pathar, Dehradun, where the complainant as per her allegations came to her parents house after she was treated with cruedly by accused in their house at Uttarkashi (U.P.). 4. The trial Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence, summoned the accused persons under Sections 498-A/406 I PC. Accused persons presented themselves before the trial Magistrate and raised objection of jurisdiction, which after hearing the parties was disallowed and against that order the present revision petition has been filed. 5. The complainant examined herself as PW 1 and stated that she was married with Ramesh Chand on 19-11-1992, who was resident of Nagoan, Uttarkashi (UP.) According to her, she stayed with her husband after marriage about 20 to 22 days but thereafter her husband and other accused persons started maltreating heron account of bringing less dowary. According to her, they also demanded Rs. 20,000/-, All these occurrences took place in her parents in-law’s house. She stated that she was given beating and on account of that illtreatment she had been residing with her parents since 16-12-1994, It has already been pointed out that the parents of the complainant were residing at Dak Pathar in Dehradun (UP.). She also stated that her parents were also given threats and thereafter she came to the house of her aunt (fathers sister) at Oachghat, Tehsil and Distt. Solan (H.P.) where she was residing. 6. She also stated that her parents were also given threats and thereafter she came to the house of her aunt (fathers sister) at Oachghat, Tehsil and Distt. Solan (H.P.) where she was residing. 6. From the statement of the complainant herself, it is abundantly clear that no part of the alleged occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of District Solan (H.P.). Whatever happened as per the version of the complainant, it happened within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh. Simply because she was residing with a close relative in Solan District, only that aspect will not empower Solan court to take cognizance of the matter which had taken place somewhere else. 7. Ordinarily, under Section 177 Cr. P.C. every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. There are certain circumstances where inquiry or trial could be legally conducted by a Court other than where the offence primarily was committed. Those cases are covered under Sections 178, 179, 180, 181 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The present case is not covered in any of the provisions referred to herein above, so as to give jurisdiction to the Magistrate at Solan to inquire and try the present complaint, 8. At this stage, the following observations made by the trial Magistrate would be very much relevant"... .No doubt, neither offence under Section 498-A nor offence under Section 406 IPC has been committed within the jurisdiction of this court. But as the offence under Section 498-A is of such a nature, place where the wife resides after living the matrimonial can be a place for inquiry and trial, if not a place for inquiry and trial of the other offence." 9. According to the trial Magistrate, it is a place of residence of the complainant which has to be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction aspect also. I think such is not the provision of law. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. According to the trial Magistrate, it is a place of residence of the complainant which has to be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction aspect also. I think such is not the provision of law. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. In this Chapter, there is no provision whereby the offence committed under Section 498-A IPC at some other place could be tries and inquired into by a court where the complainant was residing, even if the complainant was residing out of the jurisdiction of the Court, where the offence was alleged to have been committed. The trial Magistrates interpretation in this regard is patently wrong and illegal. The law cited to take advantage in favour of this interpretation is not applicable at all to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, 1994 (32) S.LJ 2087, Karmbir and others v. State of Haryana and another, supports the case of present petitioner, though the same has been cited by the learned Magistrate in the order under reference, but not relied upon. In this case, offence under Section 498-A was alleged to have been committed at village Janti, District Rewari while the first information report was registered at Police Station Nuh, District Gurgaon. it was held that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence has to be tried at the place where it was committed and Section 498-A does not fall under any exception given in the Code and accordingly the FIR was quashed. 10. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances present In this case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acted illegally in taking the cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent inasmuch as the learned Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to take cognizance, inquire and try the said complaint. It is a case where the Magistrate lacked inherent Jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The complaint is accordingly quashed and as a consequence thereof order of summoning the accused persons and disallowing their objection regarding the jurisdiction are also set aside. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Revision disposed of accordingly.