JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - This application u/s 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance of offence u/s 498A of the Penal Code as well as the order rejecting an application filed by the petitioners to recall the earlier order taking cognizance. As it appears from the record, opposite party No. 1 who is the wife of petitioner No. 1 had filed I.C.C. No. 37 of 1998 in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi, alleging commission of offence u/s 498A of the Penal Code against petitioners. The learned Magistrate after conducting inquiry u/s 202, Cr. P. C. took cognizance of the offence u/s 498A of the Penal Code. The petitioners thereafter filed an application to recall the said order taking cognizance which was also rejected. 2. Shri C.A. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, confined his argument to the question of territorial jurisdiction only. It is submitted by Shri Rao that as per the complainant's case petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 after marriage remained in Assam where the petitioner No. 1 was working. All the allegations with regard to demand of dowry and torture took place in Assam and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi. On this ground alone he challenge the order taking cognizance, 3. Shri H.M. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. l submitted that a bare reading of the com plaint indicates that not. only the demand. If dowry was made at Assam but also within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and therefore, learned Magistrate did not lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 4. A copy of the complaint petition has been annexed as Annexure-1. As per the complaint petition it appears that the marriage took place in Shri Venkateswar Temple on 13-5-1995 at village Pathapatnam. Before the marriage all the petitioners had come to Parlakhemundi to negotiate and had demanded a dowry Rs. 20.000/-. For non-payment of the demanded amount, it is further alleged, petitioner No. 1 left the complainant at Parlakhemundi promising to take her back, but did not do so till the date of filing of the complaint. Before the marriage all the petitioners had come to Parlakhemundi to negotiate and had demanded a dowry Rs. 20.000/-. For non-payment of the demanded amount, it is further alleged, petitioner No. 1 left the complainant at Parlakhemundi promising to take her back, but did not do so till the date of filing of the complaint. It is also stated in the complaint that in the year 1996 the complainant was brought to Pathapatnam by petitioner No. 1 and they stayed in her parents house at Parlakhemundi. At Parlakhemundi also petitioner No. 1 demanded the balance dowry amount and after leaving her with her parents, petitioner No. 1 left and never came back to take her. On the aforesaid factual backdrop it is to be examined as to whether the learned Magistrate at Parlakhemundi had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 5. Reliance is placed on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court repotted in T. Venkaeshwarlu and others Vs. State of A.P. and others. The Hon'ble Single Judge while examining the complaint in the said case was of the view that the Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain it at the alleged offence did not take place within his jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Tarsem Singh and Others Vs. Amrit Kaur, While considering the facts of that case the Hon'ble Single Judge was of the view that merely because the husband did not take the wife to the matrimonial house, he cannot be said to be guilty of harassment. The Hon'ble Judge further observed that no part of the cruelty or harassment having arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate where the complaint was filed, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Reliance is also placed on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Rajaram Venkatesh and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, In the said case the wife was residing with her mother. She filed the complaint at the place of her residence. A plea was taken that her husband and sister-in-law visited that place and subjected her to cruelty. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, In the said case the wife was residing with her mother. She filed the complaint at the place of her residence. A plea was taken that her husband and sister-in-law visited that place and subjected her to cruelty. The Court held that the allegation with regard to cruelty at the wife's place was not substantiated and rest of the allegations with regard to cruelty having taken place' at other place, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. From the statements made in the complaint petition it appears that before the marriage all the accused persons had come to negotiate the marriage to Parlakhemundi and demanded a dowry of Rs. 20.000/- and the parents of the complainant in their anxiety to at the complainant married, agreed to meet, the demand, but expressed their inability to pay the entire sum at a time. In paragraph 4 of the complaint it is stated that accused Nos. 1 to 3 brought the complainant from Assam to Pathapatnam in the month of May, 1996 and her husband along with the complainant came down to Parlakhemundi to the house of parents of the complainant and resided there for 15 days with the complainant and at that time also he was demanding the balance sum of Rs. 5.000/-. It is also stated in the said paragraph that the husband, petitioner No. 1, left the complainant at Parlakhemundi promising to take her back, but never took her till the date the complaint was filed. It is also stated that on 25-3-1998 the parents of petitioner No. l as well as accused No. 4 insisted on the demand and refused to take her back. It appears from the statements made in the complaint as well as initial statement recorded in course of the inquiry u/s 202, Cr. P. C. that most of the allegations relating to torture and demand of dowry appear to have been made at Assam, but there are also allegations against petitioner No. 1 having demanded the dowry at Parlakhemundi while he was staying with the complainant in the house of her parents. It also appears from the complaint that while the complainant was staying with her parents at Parlakhemundi the other petitioners also stuck to their demand of Rs. 5,000/-. It also appears from the complaint that while the complainant was staying with her parents at Parlakhemundi the other petitioners also stuck to their demand of Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that no cause of action relating to the offence alleged took place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The decisions cited by the learned counsel are based on the facts of those cases and on consideration of the facts the decision was taken that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said decisions have no application to the facts of the present case as there are some allegations in the complaint that petitioner No. 1 demanded dowry at Paralakhemundi and while the complainant was staying at Parlakhemundi with her, patents the, other petitioners stuck to their demand of balance Rs. 5,000/-. 7. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and accordingly dismiss the opplication. 8. Application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed