R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Vinay d/o Krishan Devpandey was married to accused Roshan on 2. 6. 96. After marriage, she was harassedby her husband Roshan, mother-in-law Meena Tiwari and father-in-law Yogendertiwari for not bringing dowry, demanded by them. On 9th January, her parents tookher to matrimonial home. She was turned out of her house by her in-law by stating thatshe was fat and was not beautiful. They would bring another bride who would be morebeautiful and would bring more dowry. ( 2 ) I have heard arguments from both sides. Ld. Defence Counsel has prayed fordischarge of all accused by stating that marriage between parties was solemnised inbihar. Cruelty and harassment was done at her matrimonial house at Gorakhpur. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. He has relief upon thejudgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in Mohanlal and another s. State 1999 (III)A. D. (Cr.) DHC 369. On the other hand, Ld. APP has also relief upon the judgment ofhon ble Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and Anr. 1999 ll AD (Delhi) 733 and stated that this Court has jurisdiction to try the case asoffences u/s. 498a Indian Penal Code and 406 Indian Penal Code are continuing ones and demand of return ofdowry articles has been made by the complainant in Delhi. ( 3 ) I have perused the case file. It is not disputed that marriage between parties wassolemnised in Bihar and complainant lived at her matrimonial home at Gorakhpurafter marriage where the alleged harassment and cruelty was statpd to have beencommitted upon her. The sole question to be decided is whether Delhi Court hasjurisdiction to try this case or not. ( 4 ) CHAPTER XIII of Cr. P. C. deals with jurisdiction of Criminal courts in enquiry andtrials. Section 177 provides the general rule that every offence shall ordinarily beenquired into and tried by court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Sections 178 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code carve out certain exceptions to the general rule. ( 4 ) CHAPTER XIII of Cr. P. C. deals with jurisdiction of Criminal courts in enquiry andtrials. Section 177 provides the general rule that every offence shall ordinarily beenquired into and tried by court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Sections 178 to 184 Criminal Procedure Code carve out certain exceptions to the general rule. Section178 Criminal Procedure Code provides for the place of enquiry of trial when it is uncertain in which ofthe several local areas as offence was committed or whether the offence wascommitted partly in one area and partly in other or where a continuing offence iscommitted in more local areas than one or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas. ( 5 ) SECTION 178 Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced as below for ready references:- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence wascommitted, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly inanother, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed inmore local areas than one, or (d) Where it consists or several acts done indifferent local areas, it may beinquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such localareas. ( 6 ) SECTION 181 (4) Criminal Procedure Code provides for the place of enquiry or trial for the offence ofcriminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. It provides that such offence canbe tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or anypart of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained orwas required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused persons. Section 181 (4) Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced as below for ready reference:- (4) Any of offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trustmay be enquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction theoffence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of anoffence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by accused persons. ( 7 ) SECTION 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 supplements the law with regard tooffence under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as dowry articles areconcerned. ( 7 ) SECTION 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 supplements the law with regard tooffence under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as dowry articles areconcerned. It provides that where any dowry article is received by any person, thatpersons shall transfer it to the woman in connection with whose marriage that articleshas been received and pending such transfer shall hold it in trust for the benefit of thewoman. In other words, the person receiving the dowry articles is under a legal obligation to transfer the same to the woman for whom he holds the dowry in trust. ( 8 ) NO doubt the marriage was solemnised in Bihar and complainant lived at hermatrimonial home at Gorakpur but she made the demand of the return of her dowryarticles at Delhi through her complaint filed before dowry cell, Nanakpur on 20. 2. 297. ( 9 ) HON ble Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Delhi andanother, 1999 II AD (Delhi) 733 has observed that,"offence u/s. 498a and 406 Indian Penal Code are continuing ones and in order to providereal protection and to avoid any ambiguity, it would be desirable that offencesu/ss. 498a and 406 Indian Penal Code relating to matrimonial matters should be included insub-section (2) of Section 182 Cr. P. C. " ( 10 ) IN Arun Vyas and Anr. Vs. Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690 , it was held byhon ble Supreme Court that, "the essence of the offence in Section 498a Indian Penal Code is cruelty which is acontinuing offence and in each occasion on which the wife was subjected tocruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation. " ( 11 ) SECTION 178 (c) Criminal Procedure Code clearly provides that a continuing offence can be enquiredinto or tried by the court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence in committed. " ( 11 ) SECTION 178 (c) Criminal Procedure Code clearly provides that a continuing offence can be enquiredinto or tried by the court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence in committed. ( 12 ) SECTION 179 Criminal Procedure Code provides that an offence may be enquired into or tried by acourt within whose local jurisdiction an act, which is an offence, has been done orsuch consequence has ensued, Section 179 Criminal Procedure Code is reproduced as below forready references:- "when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done andor a conseduence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into a triedby a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or suchconsequence has ensued. " ( 13 ) IN the present case, complainant Vinay has been residing with her parents atdelhi after having been turned out from her matrimonial home. She was subjected tocruelty by her in-laws at Gorakpur but consequences of those attrocities and mentaltorture are still following at Deli. In Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N. C. T. ofdelhi) and Anr. 1999 VIII AD (SC) 409, Hon ble Supreme Court had allowed theappeal of appellant by setting aside the order of Hon ble Delhi High Court regardingquashing of FIR. Directions were given to the Investigating Officer to completeinvestigation as early as possible. In the above mentioned case, Hon ble Delhi Highcourt has quashed the FIR No. 34/93 u/s. 406/498a Indian Penal Code registered at P. S. Paschimvihar by holding that Delhi police has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate theoffence. ( 14 ) IN view of the clear provisions of law, discussed above, I am of the consideredview that offences u/ss. 498a and 406 Indian Penal Code are continuing ones and this Court hasjurisdiction to try the offence as stridhan articles are demanded by the complainantfrom accused at Delhi where consequences of atrocities and mental torture were stillfollowing. Accordingly, judgment relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel is of no avail to accused. ( 15 ) MOREOVER, Section 220 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code provides that accused may be charged ortried at one trial if they have committed more than one offence. Section 220 (1)Cr. Accordingly, judgment relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel is of no avail to accused. ( 15 ) MOREOVER, Section 220 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code provides that accused may be charged ortried at one trial if they have committed more than one offence. Section 220 (1)Cr. P. C. inter alia runs as below:-"lf, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the sametransaction, more offences, than one are committed by the same person, hemay be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. " ( 16 ) IN the present case, harassment and cruelty have been alleged to have beencommitted by all accused. They have also misappropriated her dowry articles byretaining them and both the offences are so connected together as to form a part ofthe same transaction. In view of clear provision contained in Sec. 220 (1 ) Criminal Procedure Code I amof the considered view that this court has very much jurisdiction to try the offence. ( 17 ) IN view of above discussion, I do not find any ground to discharge all accused. On perusal of case file, it becomes clear that all accused have committed prima facieoffences u/ss. 498a and 406 Indian Penal Code r/w Sec. 34 IPC. Accordingly, all accused areliable to be proceeded u/ss. 498a and 406 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.