Judgment 1. Heard Mrs. Anjana Prakash learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P No. 2 2. The petition seeks the quashing of two proceedings one initiated vide G.R. Case No. 813 of 2004 arising out, of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 261 of 2004 under Sections 301, 201, 385, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and other through Saran Town P.S. Case No. 206 of 2004 under Sections 498(A), 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The question raised through the present petition by the petitioners who are accused in both the cases is that after having taken cognizance of the offences on submission of final form in Garhwa, the proceeding in the Saran Court was without jurisdiction and as such that proceeding should terminate under the provision of Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The copies of the First Information Reports of the abovenoted two cases have been annexed as annexures to the present petition. 3. Through a supplementary affidavit the copy of orders dated 5.7.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa by which cognizance of offences under Section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code was taken and the petitioners were put on trial, has been brought on the present record alongwith order dated 7.10.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran in the abovenoted Chapra Town P.S. Case No, 206 of 2004. 4. There was no dispute that the two cases and the two orders of cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra were in respect of the same offence. The dispute which appears between the two parties was as to which of the two High Courts, i.e., this Court and the High Court of Jharkhand, could decide the place of trial in respect of the proceedings. 5. Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under: 186. The dispute which appears between the two parties was as to which of the two High Courts, i.e., this Court and the High Court of Jharkhand, could decide the place of trial in respect of the proceedings. 5. Section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under: 186. High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place."Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided (a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court; (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued. 6. Mrs. Anjana Prakash appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended while interpreting sub-section (b) of the Section that the jurisdiction of this Court could be eliminated if there had not been the first information report earlier and the proceedings had not been intiated earlier in Saran. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners this Court was competent enough to decide the question in the light of Section 186(b) Cr.P.C. as the order of cognizance could not be of any relevance or importance for deciding the question. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 has seriously disputed the contention and has submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand could be the only High Court to decide the question regarding the trial of the offences in the light of Section 186 Cr. P.C., if, the Court of Garhwa had taken cognizance of offence earlier to that of Saran. 8. Section 186 makes it clear that the date of taking of cognizance by two or more than two courts is the sine qua non for the application of the provision as contained therein. It is well known that the judicial proceedings commence only when a competent criminal court takes cognizance of a particular offence either on the basis of the police report or on the complaint petition alleging the commission of the offence. It is well known that the judicial proceedings commence only when a competent criminal court takes cognizance of a particular offence either on the basis of the police report or on the complaint petition alleging the commission of the offence. Institution of a first information report or filing of a complaint petition could never be the real date for applying Section 186 Cr.P.C. If there are two orders of cognizance, as in the present case, then the first passed in time by the court shall be the important order for deciding the question and in that case it has to be considered that the court which passed the earlier order of cognizance in respect of the same offence was subordinate to which of the High Courts. This is the simple question and one could give answer after going through the provision of Section 186 Cr.P.C. 9. Undisputedly the Garhwa Court passed the order of cognizance on 5.7.2005 whereas the order of cognizance which was passed by the Saran Court is dated 7.10.2006. Thus the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa was earlier in time and as per the provision of Section 186 Cr.P.C. the High Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction over the court at Garhwa could be the only High Court empowered to decide the issue. This Court does not have the appellate control over the courts at Garhwa. In that view of the matter this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 10. This petition, in the above light, appears as of no substance. The petitioners if so advised may approach the High Court of Jharkhand for the redressal of their grievances. The application is dismissed.