Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under sec. 482 Cr.RC. has been filed to quash the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Cr. Revision No. 2 of 2003 through which order of cognizance dated 13.11.2002 passed by C.J.M., Chapra in Chapra Muffasil RS. Case No. 86 of 2002 has been confirmed. 3. The learned C.J.M. vide above order has taken cognizance against the petitioners under sections 498A, 406, 323/ 34 of the I.RC. alongwith Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The learned lawyer for the petitioners challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds: (i) that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly dismissed the revision application as not maintainable and the second is that the court of Chapra had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter which took place in Buxar district for which he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 SCC(8) 100. 5. None of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has got merit. On perusal of the impugned order passed in criminal revision, it would appear that the court below has actually decided the revision on merit and non-maintainability is just last ground for dismissal. Thus, for all practical purposes, the impugned order is an order which has been passed on merit and not on preliminary ground. 6. So far the second submission is concerned, the facts alleged in complaint petition would go to show that this case falls under sec. 179 Cr.P.C. and not under sections 177 or 178 Cr.RC. Sec.179 Cr.RC. runs as follows: "179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.-When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done, or such consequence has ensued." 7. According to paragraph-13 of the fardbeyan-cum-complaint petition, the victim after assault was driven out of the petitioners house situated in Buxar district. Thereafter, she was compelled to take shelter in her parents house at Chapra. Therefore, consequences of torture ensued at Chapra where the victim was compelled to take shelter after eviction from her Sasural. Therefore court of Chapra had also jurisdiction to entertain the case. 8. Thereafter, she was compelled to take shelter in her parents house at Chapra. Therefore, consequences of torture ensued at Chapra where the victim was compelled to take shelter after eviction from her Sasural. Therefore court of Chapra had also jurisdiction to entertain the case. 8. The above cited apex court decision in this case is not applicable which is apparent from the facts mentioned in paragraph-11 of the judgment. In that very case, the victim voluntarily left her Sasural and was not driven out by her in-laws. 9. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the factual aspect of the case at the time of framing of the charge. In that event, the court below shall consider the matter without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.