Judgment Heard Sri Sidhartha Sah learned counsel for the applicants Sri L.P. Naithani learned senior counsel & Sri Lalit Sharma learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the charge-sheet No. 304 dated 22-9-2003 State Vs. Shiv Kumar Patwa and others pending before the CJM, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16-2-2003 an FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 3- Smt. Monu Patwa with the allegations that the respondent no.3 was married with brother of applicant no.1- Shiv Kumar Patwa on 7-12-2000 at Rudrapur. After the marriage the respondent no. 3 started living in her matrimonial house at Bhopal. Thereafter, accused persons namely, Shiv Kumar Patwa (husband), Kanhaiya Lal Patwa (father-in-law), Shanti Devi Patwa (motherin-law), Sanjay Patwa (brother-in-law) and Vijay Laxmi (sister-in-law) subjected cruelty on her in connection with the dowry demand. It has been further alleged that in the morning of 13-2-2003 in Bhopal the aforesaid accused persons tortured respondent no. 3 in connection with the dowry demand and raised a demand of Rs. 10 lakh in cash, a car, computer and share in paternal property. She was threatened, tortured and beaten for the same. Then, the respondent no.3 requested her in-laws that she will arrange the dowry from her father at Rudrapur. Hence she was brought by her in-laws to Rudrapur from Bhopal on 15-2-2003 where she was again tortured and beaten for dowry demand. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by the respondent no.3. Then, the police investigated the matter as usual which culminated into the submission of the charge-sheet against the present applicants. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this, the applicants have come up before this Court. 5. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by the respondent no.3. Then, the police investigated the matter as usual which culminated into the submission of the charge-sheet against the present applicants. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this, the applicants have come up before this Court. 5. It need to be mentioned here that the grounds on which power under section 482 of the Code can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings are : (i) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (ii) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (iii) where there is an express legal bar eng rafted in any of the provisions of the 'Code' or the Act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection. . 6. It was contended that the incident occurred at Bhopal where the applicant was not present on the date of incident. The applicant no.1 is working with Bank of India, Kukshi Branch, District Dhar, M.P. which IS a considerable distance from Bhopal and he has been working there since 5-9-2002. The applicant no. 1 has also filed a certificate to this effect that during the period 1-2-2002 to 16-2-2003 the applicant no. 1 attended his working continuously and he did not leave his headquarter Kukshi. The husband of the respondent no. 3 is B.A. M.S. doctor and is posted as Biaora, District Rajgarh (M.P.) In Arshi Hospital. These facts have not been taken into account by the I.O. prior to the filling of the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention and it was submitted that the respondent No.3 alongwith her husband, father-in-law, mother-In-law came to Rudrapuron 15-2-2003 and they again despite the assurance given by the parents of the respondent NO.3 that the demand will be considered but the respondent NO.3 was again beaten by her in-laws. Accordingly on 16-2-2003 an FIR was lodged. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the brother of the applicant no. Accordingly on 16-2-2003 an FIR was lodged. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the brother of the applicant no. 1 is a doctor and was at Bhopal on the relevant date i.e. 14-2-2003 and his wife permanently resided with him. 7. This is a matter of trial as it relates to total question of facts. This fact can only be decided by the trial court. This is a plea of alibi. This court cannot go into the disputed fact as to whether the applicants were present at Bhopal on 15-2-2003 or not. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the court of Udham Singh Nagar has no jurisdiction to try the case punishable under section 498A IPC. It was further submitted that the offence can only be tried at the place where it was committed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 refuted the contention and submitted that it is continuing offence and it can be tried either at the place where it was committed or where the lady is under apprehension of such torture. It is a well settled position of law that in the cases of section 498A IPC if the lady resides at her parental house and the overt act has been committed at the matrimonial house, the court has jurisdiction to try the cases which falls within the jurisdiction of the matrimonial house or in the parental house. 9. I am in agreement to the observations made in Jagdish and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1998 Cri.L.J. p/554, which is quoted below:- "6 For the purposes of the offence under section 49B-A, the "cruelty" means willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause injury or danger to her life limb or health. If a woman is put to harassment with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet such demand then such harassment is also covered under the definition of the "cruelty" given in the explanation of section 49B-A IPC. If repeated demand of dowry is made and harassment is meted out to a woman which may be physical or mental is an act of cruelty. If repeated demand of dowry is made and harassment is meted out to a woman which may be physical or mental is an act of cruelty. It is not necessary that the husband or his relatives must be present at the time when the house wife is subjected to cruelty. If their act or conduct, omission or commission is of such a nature which results in mental and physical harassment it will amount to an act of cruelty to a woman and it is immaterial that the woman is living at that relevant time at her matrimonial home or at, her parents house.' The offence under section 498-A is a continuing offence and if the act of cruelty continues even while, the woman is living at her parents house, the offence is triable by both the Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the act of continuing offence of cruelty has been committed at matrimonial home or the parents house. " 10. I am also in agreement with the observations made in Suman Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. 1999 Cri. L.J. p/4657:- "6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused revisionists is that the learned Magistrate at Bareilly had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as in the complaint except the marriage, the entire occurrence is said to have taken place of Gorakhpur. I have gone through the contents of the complaint. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused revisionists is obviously not correct. As per the compliant the entrustment, such as the draft, ornaments and other items, had been done at Bareilly itself at the time of marriage and so even if any breach of trust has been committed subsequently at another place, the complaint could be filed at Bareilly also where a part of the cause of action arose. The complaint could be legally filed at the place where a part of the cause of action arises. It may be that the cause of action in respect of another offence arose only at Gorakhpur where ill treatment etc. The complaint could be legally filed at the place where a part of the cause of action arises. It may be that the cause of action in respect of another offence arose only at Gorakhpur where ill treatment etc. was done to the complainant as per the complaint but then whole transaction is to be seen and if a part of the cause of action as per the allegations in the complaint arose in his territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to take the cognizance of all the different offences committed in the course of transaction even though some of them had been committed beyond his territorial jurisdiction. So this plea of the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists also fails. " 11. The series of incident which have bearing on the crime committed took place are correlated. It will remain open to the applicants to raise the point of jurisdiction before the competent court who will decide the matter without being influenced by the findings of this Court. 12. Keeping in view of the above, I do not find any abuse of process of law and the application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. The applicants are directed to appear before the court concerned and if the applicants file the bail application before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate will dispose of the matter expeditiously without waste of time.