T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them in c. C. No. 266 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are A. 1 to A. 4 in the said case. The crime against them was registered in Cr. No. 22/2004 on a complaint filed by the second respondent herein and the same having been forwarded to the station House Officer, Huzurnagar Police station, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity the code ) for investigation. Eventually at the culmination of investigation, the Investigating officer laid the charge-sheet against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Huzurnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, when cognizance whereof was taken by the Court. Pursuant to the summonses issued by the Court, the petitioners appeared before it. ( 3 ) THE first petitioner/a. 1 is the husband of the second respondent, their marriage having been solemnized on 29. 12. 2002. A. 2, A. 3 and A. 4 are the mother, sister and maternal grandmother of A. 1 respectively. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent gave net cash of rs. 70,000/-, gold ornaments worth rs. 20,000/- and household articles worth rs. 15,000/- besides promising to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of second respondent. However, A. 1 to A. 4 started harassing her to get that amount of Rs. 50,000/- to them and in that connection they used to beat her daily and abuse her. While things stood thus, when the mother and grandmother of the second respondent visited Kondaguntur village whereat the accused and the second respondent were residing, A. 1 to A. 4 confined them and obtained their signatures on blank promissory notes. A few days thereafter the grandmother of A. 1 died. A. 1 and A. 2 demanded the mother and grandmother of the second respondent over phone to bring Rs. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and threatened to kill the second respondent in the event of any failure. Therefore, the mother of the second respondent, one Manda Suryanarayana and mohammad Hazi, who were residents of huzurnagar, visited Kondaguntur Village and approached Rajanagaram Police. 10,000/- for funeral expenses and threatened to kill the second respondent in the event of any failure. Therefore, the mother of the second respondent, one Manda Suryanarayana and mohammad Hazi, who were residents of huzurnagar, visited Kondaguntur Village and approached Rajanagaram Police. A. 1 to A. 4 agreed for divorce in between the first petitioner and the second respondent before the police. However, they did not come forward to take divorce. The parents of the second respondent, therefore, took her to Huzurnagar whereat the second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial magistrate of First Class. As aforesaid, that complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation and eventually charge-sheet was laid against the accused. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the marriage was solemnized at Teachers colony, Kakinada in East Godavari District. The second respondent joined her husband and led marital life for a few months at that place from where ultimately she left the matrimonial house on 22. 9. 2003 for her parents house and thus, the first petitioner and the second respondent last resided together at Kakinada. Since no part of cause of action has arisen at Huzurnagar, the Court at Huzurnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. ( 5 ) THE only point that arises for my determination in this case is as to whether the criminal proceedings in C. C. No. 266 of 2004 pending on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, are liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction. ( 6 ) CRIME is in its essential nature local. Vide Mohd. Yusufuddin v. Queen-Empress, 1898 ILR 25 Cal. 20 (PC ). The common law principle that all crimes are local and justiciable only by local Courts within whose jurisdiction they are committed, has been adopted in the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 7 ) CHAPTER XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. According to Section 177 thereof, every offence shall ordinarily be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it has been committed. According to section 178, if the offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, such offence may be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. According to section 178, if the offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, such offence may be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 179, however, deals with cause and effect. Where an act has been committed at one place but the consequence has ensued at a different place, that offence may be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such an act has been committed or consequence ensued. Under Section 185 of the Code the state Government is empowered to direct that any case or class of cases committed for trial in any District to be tried in any sessions Division. Similarly under Section 186 thereof the High Court is competent to decide the cases where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence, which Court shall try such offence. Section 188 reads that if an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of india, the offender may be dealt with for such offence as if it had been committed by him at any place within India at which he may be found. The provisions contained in chapter XIII of the Code are procedural and are meant to further the ends of justice. ( 8 ) CHAPTER XIV of the Code deals with cognizance to be taken by the Court and the limitations engrafted thereon. Section 190 thereof reads that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts; upon a police report; and upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer or upon his own knowledge. When the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon his own information and if the accused informs him that he is entitled to have the case enquired or tried by another Magistrate and objects for the trial of case before him, the case shall be transferred to any other magistrate to be specified by the Chief judicial Magistrate in that behalf. ( 9 ) CHAPTER XV of the Code deals with complaints to Magistrates. If the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a complaint field before him, he shall examine the complainant except in cases where the complainant is a public servant. ( 9 ) CHAPTER XV of the Code deals with complaints to Magistrates. If the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a complaint field before him, he shall examine the complainant except in cases where the complainant is a public servant. If for any reason, the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence and when the complaint is filed before him, the magistrate shall return the complaint for presentation to the proper Court as per section 201 of the Code. Section 201 which specifically deals with such a situation, in my considered view, is not only applicable to a case instituted on a private complaint alone, nay even apply, since it is procedural, to the cases instituted on a police report. ( 10 ) IT is appropriate at this stage to consider Section 462 of the Code. It reads as under:"462. Proceedings in wrong place :no finding, sentence or order of any Criminal court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. " ( 11 ) A perusal of the above provision shows that the finding of the Criminal Court shall not be set aside merely on the ground that the trial was conducted at a wrong place unless such a trial results or occasions a failure of justice. It is an indicia, therefore, that even the trial conducted before a Court having no territorial jurisdiction cannot be defeated except in cases where such trial occasions a failure of justice. If, before the commencement of the proceedings before a wrong Court, that Court is informed about its lack of territorial jurisdiction, it shall return the case for presentation before the proper Court. ( 12 ) THUS, a perusal of the provisions contained in Chapters XIII, XIV, and XV of the Code makes it manifest that a case can be tried by a Court though it has no territorial jurisdiction when it is transferred to that Court either by the Government or by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 12 ) THUS, a perusal of the provisions contained in Chapters XIII, XIV, and XV of the Code makes it manifest that a case can be tried by a Court though it has no territorial jurisdiction when it is transferred to that Court either by the Government or by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court which has no territorial jurisdiction when receives a complaint and takes cognizance of the offence shall return the complaint for presentation before the proper Court. Thus provisions of the Code do not envisage a situation where the court takes cognizance of the case without necessary territorial jurisdiction the proceedings initiated before that Court shall have to be thrown overboard. ( 13 ) TERRITORIAL jurisdiction is not regarded as synonymous with essential jurisdiction and trial in a wrong district is not a fatal defect. Territorial jurisdiction is a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular Court, the convenience of the accused and the convenience of the witnesses. The rule laid down under Section 177 of the Code, therefore, cannot go to the root of the matter and does not make the trial of an accused by a Court having no territorial jurisdiction a nullity. It has been held by the Apex Court in Nasiruddin Khan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 186 , at Page 189 thus: "according to the scheme of the Code trial within a wrong territorial jurisdiction does not by itself vitiate it. " ( 14 ) THE expression "ordinarily" used in Section 177 of the Code does not give exclusively jurisdiction to any Magistrate. The expression "ordinarily", therefore, must be taken to mean except in cases provided elsewhere in the Code to the contrary. Sections 178 to 185 of the Code provide exceptions to the rule embodied in Section 177 and provide the circumstances in which an accused may be tried at a place other than the place of commission of the offence. Sections 218 to 223 of the Code provide exceptions to Section 177 and permit the trial of particular offences along with others in one Court. Even though, several offences may have been committed at different places, they may be tried at one place notwithstanding the rule embodied in Section 177. Sections 218 to 223 of the Code provide exceptions to Section 177 and permit the trial of particular offences along with others in one Court. Even though, several offences may have been committed at different places, they may be tried at one place notwithstanding the rule embodied in Section 177. If the accused does not raise any objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, or raises it when the whole of the prosecution evidence has been recorded and even some of the accused have been discharged, and if he does not say that he was in any way prejudiced, the trial in a wrong Court would stand, particularly when it is not shown that any other Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence. Thus, from the scheme of the Code, it is obvious that the proceedings shall not be defeated when initiated before a wrong forum, which lacks territorial jurisdiction. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to place reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Y. Abraham ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, chennai, 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 491 (SC), to buttress his contention. That was also a case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act. According to the complainant, the offence took place at nagercoil but charge-sheet was laid ultimately before the Court at Chennai. The Apex Court held that since no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Court at Chennai whereat the charge-sheet was filed, that Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and therefore, the proceedings were liable to be quashed. While quashing the proceedings, the Apex Court directed the Trial Court to return the complaint to the respondent No. 2 therein for filing the same in the appropriate court if she so chooses. ( 16 ) OBVIOUSLY, the Apex Court proceeded only on the basis of the provisions of Section 177 of the Code. It has not considered the exceptions carved out to the principle embodied in Section 177 in various other Sections in the Code and the effect of, more particularly, the provisions of Section 462 of the Code. ( 16 ) OBVIOUSLY, the Apex Court proceeded only on the basis of the provisions of Section 177 of the Code. It has not considered the exceptions carved out to the principle embodied in Section 177 in various other Sections in the Code and the effect of, more particularly, the provisions of Section 462 of the Code. The Apex court has not considered further its earlier judgment in Nasiruddin Khan s case (supra) and also its earlier decisions in Trisuns chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and satvinder Kaur v. State (referred to infra ). At the end the Court directed the complaint be returned to the complainant with a direction to present it before appropriate court while directing the proceedings be quashed. Obviously quashing will have the invariable effect of annulling or rejecting the proceeding as not valid. At any rate it is certainly not setting aside the order of the court taking cognizance of the offence so that the complaint can be returned for presentation before proper forum. ( 17 ) YET another judgment in Om hemrajani v. State of U. P. and another, 2004 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 1088, the apex Court had to deal with the provisions of Section 188 of the Code. That was a case where an offence was committed by indian outside India. The Apex Court held that any Court in India whereat the accused found had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. ( 18 ) TURNING to the two judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra, in Trisuns chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686 = 1999 (2) ALD (Crl.) 693 (SC), it held in Para 14 thus:"the jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore a fallacious thinking that only a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the first Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the Court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post-cognizance stage and not earlier. If he is a Magistrate of the first Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the Court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post-cognizance stage and not earlier. "in the latter judgment in Satvinder Kaur v. State, (1999) 8 SCC 728 = AIR 1999 SC 3596 , the Apex Court held in Para 11 thus: "chapter XIII of the Code provides for "jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in enquiries and trials". It is to be stated that under the said chapter there are various provisions which empower the Court for enquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, enquired or tried. This would be clear by referring to sections 177 to 188. " again in Para 12 it was held thus:"a reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that Section 177 provides for "ordinary place of enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another and where it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime. " ( 19 ) IN view of this clear legal position, the petitioners cannot seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them altogether. However, it is open to them to take such a plea before the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, before the trial is commenced and if the learned magistrate is convinced about the want of territorial jurisdiction, he can follow the procedure as envisaged under Section 201 of the Code. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition must fail and is dismissed at the threshold with the observations made inter alia in the order supra.