ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners, named above, for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of CP No. 163 of 2004, registered for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as also all the orders, passed therein, including the orders dated 16th June, 2004, 21st August, 2004 and 12th October, 2004, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Aforesaid prayer has been made mainly on the ground that no part of the alleged offence having been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the proceeding is not maintainable. 2. The case of the petitioners is that marriage between petitioner No.1. namely, Pradipta Sahu, and opposite party No. 2, namely, Mrs. Anuradha @ Minu Sahu, was solemnized on 17th April, 2003, according to Hindu rites and customs at Ghanty Milan Mandir, District-Burdwan, within the State of West Bengal. Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are the in-laws of opposite party No. 2. It is stated that since after the marriage, to the utter dismay of the petitioners, it was discovered that opposite party No. 2 was not willing to stay with her husband. Further, it was discovered that her parents had, in fact, suppressed the age of opposite party No. 2, who was found 2 to 3 years older than her date of birth, as was given by her parents in course of negotiation. It is further stated that after marriage, the petitioners noticed that opposite party No. 2 was suffering from acute nervous disorder, which was suppressed at the time of solemnization of marriage. After marriage, Ashtha Mangala Puja was held on 24th April, 2003, whereinafter, opposite party No, 2 is stated to have told her husband that she can not accompany him to Kolkata, because she was to appear at some examination at Aurangabad, Bihar. When husband of opposite party No. 2 wanted to accompany her to Aurangabad, opposite party No. 2 refused and said that she will go along with her brother and will come back after her examination is over. When husband of opposite party No. 2 wanted to accompany her to Aurangabad, opposite party No. 2 refused and said that she will go along with her brother and will come back after her examination is over. Thereafter, she left the house of petitioner No. 1 and after two days, petitioner No. 1 received call from his wife (opposite party No. 2), when she said that she was staying at Anuragh Narayan Road, Aurangabad, along with someone, to whom she called uncle, although she did not give the name of the said person and stated that her brother has returned to Bokaro immediately. Petitioner No. 1 became stunned due to the said conduct of his wife, who was staying outside for about 10 to 12 days. When petitioner No. 1 talked to his father-in-law, he was informed by his in-laws that they will look into it. It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 stayed together for about 25 to 30 days in between 17th April. 2003 i.e. when they were married and 24th August, 2003 when she finally left her in-laws house after insulting several body, including her in-laws and husband. All the petitioners are stated to have requested father of opposite party No. 2 to came and resolve the dispute but when they came, opposite party No. 2 did not agree even with their suggestions. In the aforesaid situation, petitioner No. 1 is stated to have moved before a Court of competent jurisdiction for dissolution of marriage. Further case of the petitioners is that when the aforesaid matters were brought to the notice of the Court, opposite party No. 2 threatened them of dire consequences and in such a situation, petitioner No. 1 lodged Suri PS GD No. 517 dated 11th September, 2003 and GD No. 122 dated 3rd December, 2003. Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 2004 has also been filed by petitioner No. 1 before the District Judge, Birbhum at Siuri, praying therein, for a decree, declaring the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 as nullity and not binding upon the petitioners. 3. Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 2004 has also been filed by petitioner No. 1 before the District Judge, Birbhum at Siuri, praying therein, for a decree, declaring the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 as nullity and not binding upon the petitioners. 3. When the case was taken up on 10th November, 2004, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the husband (petitioner No. 1) is ready to keep her wife (opposite party No. 2) with him with full dignity and for that the husband is ready to compromise the matter with the wife. On the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court issued notice on opposite party No. 2 as to why steps be not taken for conciliation of the matter and, if so necessary, to resolve the dispute by amicable settlement of the issues. At the request of the counsel for the petitioners, interim order was passed on that date itself i.e. 10th November, 2004, staying the proceedings of CP No. 163 of 2004." After notice, opposite party No. 2 Mrs. Anuradha @ Minu Sahu (wife) appeared on 21st March, 2005 and filed an affidavit, informing that she is willing to stay with her husband, namely, Pradipta Sahu (petitioner No. 1). However, petitioner No. 1, on his appearance, informed that he has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and he refused to keep opposite party No. 2 Mrs. Anuradha @ Minu Sahu (wife) along with him, though interim relief was obtained from the Court on the ground that petitioner No. 1 intends to keep his wife along with him. 4. Counsel for the petitioners argued the case on merit and challenged the proceedings mainly on the ground that no part of the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate, 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 placed relevant part of the complaint petition No. 163 of 2004, filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro (Jharkhand), including the solemn affirmation of the complainant. In the solemn affirmation, the complainant while stated that the marriage took place at Asansol (West Bengal) on 17th April, 2003, has alleged that her husband and in-laws, thereafter, started threatening her for dowry and asked her to bring a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. In the solemn affirmation, the complainant while stated that the marriage took place at Asansol (West Bengal) on 17th April, 2003, has alleged that her husband and in-laws, thereafter, started threatening her for dowry and asked her to bring a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. It is further alleged that she was insulted, beaten and was not given any food for days together. Thereafter, her parents when went to have a talk with her husband and in-laws, they said that they will go for second marriage of petitioner No. 1 and will divorce her. Thereafter, she had to go back to the house of her parents. 6. In the complaint petition, the complainant has stated that she wrote several letters to her husband and in-laws, praying pardon therein, in case she had committed any fault, knowingly or unknowingly and did several telephonic calls to her in-laws. However, they even tortured her mentally on telephone and also threatened her not to contact her husband on telephone or any person at Kolkata office. Her parent-in-laws expressed that their son Pradipta Sahu (petitioner No. 1) is being business at Siuri and for promoting his business, a handsome amount is required and they will not accept the complainant without getting the aforesaid amount. Accused Pradipta Sahu also misbehaved with her and abused her and her parents on telephone. 7. It appears that the telephonic conversation between the parties i.e. opposite party No. 2 and the petitioners took place while opposite party No. 2 was at Bokaro, residing with her parents. 8. In the circumstances, prima facie, it appears that part of the alleged offence i.e. threatening and demand of dowry has taken place within the territory of Bokaro (State of Jharkhand), while opposite party No. 2 was staying with her parents and the petitioners are alleged to have demanded dowry and have given threatening on telephone. 9. In the circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioners, is not inclined to quash the proceedings of C.P. No. 163 of 2004, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. There being no merit, this criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed.