JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. This is a petition under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 407 CrPC for transfer or C. R. case No. 1829 of 1999 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), West Tripura, to the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Belonia, South Tripura filed by the 19 petitioners who are accused in the aforesaid case and are residents within the local jurisdiction of the latter court. 2. I have heard Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. M. Debnath, learned advocate. 3. The short facts leading the petitioners to file this transfer petition are that the sole respondent Smt. Sefalli Malla is the wife of the first petitioner Ratan Malla and whose marriage had taken place on 28.2.1998. The allegation as discernible from the complaint petition of the respondent which was registered as C.R. 1829/99 is that at the time of marriage the first petitioner demanded Rs. 30,000 apart from gold ornaments, steel furniture and TV set as dowry. Though her father gave gold ornaments and furniture, the cash dowry and TV set could not be given which led to the discord between the parties. During her stay in her husband's house she was tortured by her husband and other in-laws. She disclosed her plight to her mother and sister-in-law when she and her husband made a customary visit to her parents house on 26.3.1998. After three days she returned to her husband's house at Debdaru in the local jurisdiction of SDJM, Belonia in the last week of May 1998. She along with her husband again visited her parents' house at Agartala where her husband declared that she was mentally sick and, therefore, he was not ready to take her back to the marital home. She then disclosed in his presence that she was being tortured physically and mentally by him and other petitioners who are his relatives on around of insufficient dowry. The relation thus suffered several jolts and attempts were made by her parents for a settlement. Her mother brought her back to her husband again and in due course she became pregnant. Against her will her pregnancy was terminated and she was again subjected to brutal torture. The relation thus suffered several jolts and attempts were made by her parents for a settlement. Her mother brought her back to her husband again and in due course she became pregnant. Against her will her pregnancy was terminated and she was again subjected to brutal torture. Finally, she had to take shelter in her parents' house in Agartala where in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) she lodged the complaint which was registered under Section 498A IPC. 4. All the 19 petitioners herein who are the accused in the above noted criminal case have prayed for transfer or the criminal case from Agartala to Belonia which are in two different Sessions Divisions on the ground that as per provision of Sections 177 and 178 CrPC, the CJM, West Tripura has got no jurisdiction to try the offence. Their grievance is that only with a view to harass the petitioners the respondent has filed the criminal case at Agartala with the allegation which are per se without any basis. Admittedly, the alleged offence had taken place in the house of the first petitioner which fails within the local jurisdiction of the SDJM, Beionia under South Tripura Sessions Division, but the complaint has been lodged in the court of CJM, West Tripura, Agartala under the West Tripura Sessions Division. It is contended that the petitioners being 19 in number are required, to spend Rs. 2,000 on every date for attending the court which could be avoided if the case is tried by the SDJM, Belonia. 5. Section 407(1)(C) of CrPC provides, thus : - whenever it is made to appear to the High Court that an order under this Section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order that any offence be inquired into or tried by any court not qualified under Sections 177 and 178, but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence. Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 177 of the Code requires that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 177 of the Code requires that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. As the CJM, West Tripura, Agartala has got no jurisdiction, the High Court is required to make an order that the case shall be inquired into and tried by the SDJM, Belonia. In support of his submission he refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in AIR 2004 SCW 4788. In that case, the complaint was lodged alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the petition under Section 482 of the Code before the Madras High Court the accused persons alleged that the concerned Magistrate had no jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint as the allegations made in the complaint petition had taken place at Nagercoil and, therefore, the courts at Chennai did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The High Court felt that local parameters were to be considered after a thorough trial after due opportunity to the parties and, therefore, the factual points raised by the parties were not to be adjudicated under Section 484 of the Code. The Apex court in para 9 of the above quoted decision focused on the wording "ordinarily" appearing in Section 177 of the Code and then observed, thus - 9. All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed, as observed by Blackstone, a significant word used in Section 177 of the Code is "ordinarily". Use of the word indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in the Code. As observed by the Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal 1961 CriLJ 728, L.N. Mukherjee v. State of Madras 1961 CriLJ 736, Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalia and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 1620 and Mohan Baitha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. As observed by the Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal 1961 CriLJ 728, L.N. Mukherjee v. State of Madras 1961 CriLJ 736, Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalia and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 1620 and Mohan Baitha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2001 CriLJ 1738, exception implied by the word "ordinarily" need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court. No such exception is applicable to the case at hand. It is to be seen whether any exception is applicable to the instant case in order to examine whether Section 178 (c) CrPC has any application. Section 178 (c) reads : - 178. Place of inquiry or trial - (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. What amounts to continuing offence has been examined by the Apex court in the above noted case. It has been held in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nanshi reported in 1973 CriLJ 347 that continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all that it is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that on every occasion such disobedience or non-compliance occurs or recurs, there is the offence committed. On factual background or this case, it was noted that the complainant herself had left the house of the husband on account of alleged dowry demanded by the husband and his relatives. There was not even a whisper or allegation about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less than at Chennai. That being so, the Supreme Court held that the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of offence cannot be applied. There was not even a whisper or allegation about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less than at Chennai. That being so, the Supreme Court held that the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of offence cannot be applied. While dealing with that case, the-Supreme court discussed the plea relating to the continuance of offence which was examined by it in Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 CriLJ 2985, In that case the factual background was different. Though the dowry demands were made earlier the husband of the complainant went to the place where the complainant was residing and had assaulted her. It was held in that factual background that Clause (c) of Section 178 CrPC was attracted. 6. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the sole respondent brought to my notice the allegation made by her in the complaint petition. Though the husband in order to further her mental torture declared that she was mentally sick, the Mental department of the G B Hospital where she was taken for treatment opined that she was mentally fit and this has been narrated in para 19 of the complaint. Therefore, declaring the petitioner mentally sick and refusing to take her to the marital home on that ground by her husband as alleged in the para 6 of the complaint petition amounts to mental torture and this had happened in the last week of May 1998 in the house of the complainant's parents at Agartala. Therefore, though dowry demands were made and she was tortured initially in the house of her husband, it was a continuing offence when the first petitioner-husband brought her to her parents' house at Agartala and declared her mentally sick which was ploy to put pressure for dowry causing thereby mental torture. In such factual background Section 178(c) of the Code is attracted and, therefore, the CJM, West Tripura, Agartala has got the local jurisdiction to try the alleged offence. 7. Mr. Bhowmik seeks support from one more decision of the Delhi High Court in Mohan Lal v. State reported in 2000 CRL. J. 3762 where the continuing offence has been clarified. In that case the acts of cruelty had taken place in Himachal Pradesh at the matrimonial home of the complainant-wife. 7. Mr. Bhowmik seeks support from one more decision of the Delhi High Court in Mohan Lal v. State reported in 2000 CRL. J. 3762 where the continuing offence has been clarified. In that case the acts of cruelty had taken place in Himachal Pradesh at the matrimonial home of the complainant-wife. She left that home and came to Delhi and started living at her parents' house. Delhi High Court held that the acts of cruelty came to an end as soon as the complainant left her matrimonial home and, therefore, the court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence as alleged. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival issues discussed above and it appears that the fact situation both in Y. Abraham (supra) and in Mohan Lal (supra) are different from the factual position of the case at hand inasmuch as there is one specific allegation of mental torture which had taken place at Agartala in the parents' house of the respondent-wife. These facts are similar to the facts in Sujata Mukherjee (supra) where the Supreme Court held that Clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is attracted because at least on one occasion torture had taken place in the house of wife Section 407 of the Code enlists number of circumstances giving wider power to the High Court to transfer cases and appeals where ends of justice so demands. The power includes an order for trial of any offence by a court not qualified under Sections 177 to 185 of the Code but competent in other respects to inquire into or try such offences if it is felt that for an impartial inquiry or the trial it is necessary so to do. In the factual background discussed above where the respondent-wife made allegations of different forms of physical and mental torture including termination of pregnancy against her will and making a declaration that she was suffering mentally though the Doctors had different opinion, it may be appropriate that the CJM court at Agartala under whose local jurisdiction she resides should try the offence. This is more so in view of the fact that a part or the mental torture is alleged to have been taken place in her parents' house at Agartala as already noted above. 9. This is more so in view of the fact that a part or the mental torture is alleged to have been taken place in her parents' house at Agartala as already noted above. 9. In view of the discussions made above this Transfer petition has no merit and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed which I hereby do. Petition dismissed