ORDER 1. The instant petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of CrPC praying therein to set aside the impugned order dated 2.5.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna in Criminal Case No. 1113/06, wherein the learned Magistrate after conducting inquiry under sections 200 & 202 of CrPC has issued process, for the offence punishable under section 498-A, IPC and complaint has been registered against the petitioners. 2. Shri Raj Shrivastava, the learned counsel of the petitioners, has submitted that the alleged offence is not the continuing offence and on perusal of the complaint, as well as the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that all the incidents have happened at Village Lukwasa District Shivpuri, the matrimonial home and not at Village Tarawata District Guna the parental home of the complainant/respondent. While drawing attention on a judgment rendered by the apex Court in Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another [ 2007 (1) JLJ 198 = (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 336], he has submitted that if the complainant, after suffering torture from the in-laws, the petitioners herein, leaves the matrimonial home and lives at parental home, this does not give jurisdiction to the Court at parental home. He submits that because the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case, hence the impugned order ought to be set aside. In support, he further draws attention on a judgment rendered by the apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another [ 2004 (8) SCC 100 ]. 3. Countering the contentions Shri Amit Lahoti, the learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted, that as per the allegation mentioned in the complaint as well as in the statements, the petitioners after subjecting the complainant with cruelty have left her at matrimonial home at village Tarawata District Guna. This fact gives jurisdiction to CJM, Guna to take cognizance in the case. He further submits that the judgment in the case Manish Ratan (supra) is not helpful to the petitioners because as per the facts, the complainant herself came to her parental home while in the present case she was left by the petitioners at her parental home against her will. He further submits that the judgment in the case Manish Ratan (supra) is not helpful to the petitioners because as per the facts, the complainant herself came to her parental home while in the present case she was left by the petitioners at her parental home against her will. While drawing attention at the para 2 of the statement of Ramshre PW-3, the mother of the complainant, he has submitted that when she was left at village Tarawata, she came there weeping and her condition was very bad. Cruelty as mentioned in the alleged offence can be played at more than one places and when it is played at more than one places, the Court having jurisdiction upon anyone of the places, can take cognizance and try the offence. 4. The provision of section 498-A are as under: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation -- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life. limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." (emphasis supplied) 5. The relavant para 4 of the complainant is as under :- ¼4½ ;g fd fnukad 15-12-2005 dh ?kVuk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k jk/ks’;ke] ukjk;.kçlkn] Jherh jruckbZ us vfHk;ksfx;k dh MaMksa ls ekjihV dh vkSj dgk fd rw vHkh rd eksVjlkbfdy ,oa uxnh #i;s ysdj ek;ds ls ugha vk;h gS] rq>s vc ge ugha j[ksaxs] vkSj vfHk;ksfx;k ds Åij feV~Vh dk rsy Mky fn;k] vkx yxkdj ekjus dh dksf’k’k djus yxs] rFkk /kksal nh fd rw f’kdk;r djsxh ;k dk;Zokgh djsxh rks ek;ds esa Hkh ftank ugha cpus nsaxs] vfHk;ksfx;k dks ekjihVdj 15-12-2005 dks ek;ds NksM+ fn;k] rHkh ls vfHk;ksfx;k ek;ds esa firk ds ikl gSA (Emphasis supplied) In support of this statement, the statement of respondent Kiran Bai is -----------------15-12-2005 dh ckr gS rc eq>s MaMksa ls ekjk Fkk vkSj rsy Mkydj vkx yxkus dh dksf’k’k dh Fkh vkSj xzke rjkoVk esa Hkxk fn;k Fkk----- The statement of Vrindavanlal Sharma, the father of the respondent is - -----------15-12-2005 dh ?kVuk gSA esjh cPph ds llqjky okyksa us esjh cPph dks ekjus dh dksf’k’k rsy Mkydj dh vkSj rjkoVk NksM+ x;s------- The statement of Ramshree (PW 3), the mother of the respondent is - ------------------------nhikoyh ds ckn esjh yM+dh dks xzke rjkoVk NksM+dj vkjksihx.k pys x;sA ml le; og fxjrh mBrh jksrh gq;h vk;h FkhA mldh cgqr cqjh gkyr Fkh--------------- and statement of witness Amar Singh, who appears to be an independent witness is -- ----------------------fnukad 15-12-2005 dks mlds xzke rjkoVk esa NksM+ x;sA mldh gkyr [kjkc Fkh---------- 6. The aforementioned extracts from the complaint and the statements, clearly mention that the respondent, on her own will, did not come to her parental home or she was not brought there by any of his family members from parental side. In usual course, a married lady does not go at her parental home unless she is invited or somebody from the parental side personally goes to bring her at home. Leaving the respondent at her parental village against her will, in such conditions, prima facie amounts to cruelty played by in-laws, at her parental village Tarawata, where she was left immediately after such act of cruelty played at the matrimonial home, because it is injurious to her health. Leaving the respondent at her parental village against her will, in such conditions, prima facie amounts to cruelty played by in-laws, at her parental village Tarawata, where she was left immediately after such act of cruelty played at the matrimonial home, because it is injurious to her health. As provided in section 498-A, IPC, particularly in the highlighted part in para 4, cruelty also includes the act which is injurious to the health of the complainant whether mental or physical or harassment to her to meet any unlawful demand, etc. Deserting leaving a married lady by the in-laws against her will at her parental village with a motive that by this act she will bring money/goods in the shape of dowry to the in-laws itself is such an act which is injurious to the mental as well as physical health of her. Leaving aside the instances of cruelty played on respondent/complainant at her matrimonial home Lukwasa, District Shivpuri, if this specific act of the petitioners is considered that the complainant/wife was left at her parental home against her will and in that way harassed with a view to coerce her to meet this demand of cash and motorcycle, this amounts to cause grave injury or torture to her health whether mentally or physically and the petitioners become liable to be prosecuted by the Court having jurisdiction over the village Tarawata, the parental home, District Guna as provided under section 178 (b) of CrPC. Once this act of cruelty can be inquired and tried into by the Court having jurisdiction at village Tarawata, the other two offences of the same kind, committed by the petitioners within a period of one year, can also be charged and tried by the Court having jurisdiction at Tarawata, as provided in section 219 of CrPC. 7. The judgment of the apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and Manish Ratan (supra) has laid down (1) That this kind of offence is not a continuing one and it is of a kind which is committed once and for all, (2) leaving the matrimonial home by the complainant herself, even on account of cruelty played on her and living at her parental home, gives no cause of action to the Court at parental village. In both these cases, as per the facts, no overt act was attributed to the in-laws at the places, where the criminal proceedings were pending i.e. at Datia and Chennai. Hence, concluded that no cause of action arose there. However, in the judgments of both these cases, the case of Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, [ (1997) 5 SCC 30 ] and Ramesh and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, [ (2005) 3 SCC 507 ] have been referred. In the case of Mukherjee, part of cause of action has been held justified at Raipur and in the case of Ramesh, at Chennai because one of the facts was happened at those places also. Same are the facts here, in this case. Most of the incidents have happened at village Lukwasa, the matrimonial home but one incident as discussed hereinabove, has happened at village Tarawata, District Guna also, where the impugned criminal proceedings are pending. In view of this, the contention on behalf of respondent/complainant, as observed in the cases of Mukherjee and Ramesh (supra), appears justified that the Court at Guna is also having jurisdiction. Thus, the observation in both the cases cited, Y. Abraham Ajith and Manish Ratan cannot help the petitioners in this case because the facts are different. 8. Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, before whom the impugned criminal proceeding is pending, is having jurisdiction to try the case, hence the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.