ORDER Onkareshwar Bhatt, J. - This is a petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 30-10-1999 passed by the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 1999. 2 Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Sri Navin Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. The opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicant and five others under sections 498-A, 323, 353, 147, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate VI, Mathura. Allegations in the complaint are that Smt. Seema, daughter of opposite party No. 2 was married to Mahesh Kumar on 10-5-1992. After the marriage Seema went to live at Jaipur. She was cruelly treated anti harassed for demand of dowry. On 10-4-1999 kerosene oil was sprinkled on her but she was let off on the condition that she will go to Mathura and bring Rs. 20,000/- as dowry. Seema was driven out by the husband and she is living with her parents at Mathura. Seemas father went several times to Jaipur but the in-laws raised the demand of dowry. Since 10-4-1994 Seema is living with the complainant-opposite party No. 2, her father. It is also alleged that on 9-11-1997 the applicant, Smt. Indubala alongwith other five accused came to Mathura for compromising the matter. They demanded dowry and also colour T.V. which was not acceptable to the complainant whereupon all of them proceeded to assault Seema and her father. 4. The Magistrate after recording the statements of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant, and two witnesses, which included Seema also, summoned the accused. 5. The applicant challenged that order in revisional court. The revisional court dismissed the revision by the impugned order dated 30-10-1999. 6. The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Smt. Seema has not filed the complaint. It is her father who has instituted the complaint. Section 198-A Cr. P.C. empowers the father of the aggrieved woman also to file complaint. If the law permits the father of the woman to institute the complaint, there is nothing wrong about the same. This submission of the learned counsel has no force. 7. It is further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as is provided under section 468 Cr. P.C. empowers the father of the aggrieved woman also to file complaint. If the law permits the father of the woman to institute the complaint, there is nothing wrong about the same. This submission of the learned counsel has no force. 7. It is further contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as is provided under section 468 Cr. P.C. Section 498-A I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. According to section 468(2)(c) Cr. P.C. period of limitation is three years. In the complaint it has been stated that on 9-11-1997 the applicant. and others came, demanded dowry and threatened to assault opposite party No. 2 and his daughter, Seema. The complaint has been filed on 5-2-1998 which is within three years from 9-11-1997 when the cause of action arose. Moreover, an offence under section 498-A, I.P.C. would be a continuing offence because cruelty to Seema continued even after she was driven out by her husband. Cruelty also means harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property. 8. The allegations in the complaint show that the applicant and her associates came to Mathura where they demanded dowry and threatened to assault the complainant and his daughter. This act had taken place at Mathura. In view of sub clauses (c)(d) of section 178 Cr. P.C. the court at Mathura had jurisdiction to try the offence. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case, State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and another1 on the proposition of continuing offence. This case relates to Mines Act. However, it lays down that the Offence would be continuing if an act or omission continues and. therefore, constitutes a -fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In an offence under section 498-A I.P.C. there is the ingredient of continuance of the offence. The case of Prem Singh etc. v. State of Haryana2 relied upon by the applicants counsel has also no application to the facts of this case because it relates to an offence under section 304-B I.P.C. 9. In view of above discussion the impugned order calls for no interference in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. The petition has got no force and is hereby dismissed. In view of above discussion the impugned order calls for no interference in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P.C. The petition has got no force and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 20-6-2001 is vacated. Petition dismissed. 1. A.I.R. 1973 SC 908. 2. 1998(37) ACC 555: 1998 (2) Supreme (Cr.) 200: 1998 (6) Supreme 275