JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Two of the nine F.I.R. named accused of Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 580 of 2002 have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 12.4.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 120B/34 I.P.C. against all the accused including the petitioners. 2. It appears that one Kumari Suman, the complainant, impleaded herein as Opp. Party No. 2, filed Complaint Case No. 1633 of 2002 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna and on the same being transmitted to the concerned Police Station, the instant Gardanibagh P.S. case came to be registered under Sections 493A, 494, 406 and 120B/34 I.P.C.. According to the complainant, her marriage with accused No. 1, Suresh Kumar Srivastava, was solemnized on 20.7.1999 whereat a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash was given to the accused persons and ornaments worth Rs. 40,000/- and clothes and utensils etc. worth Rs. 20,000/- was gifted as presents. It is also alleged that a sum of Rs. 1 Lac was deposited in F.D. in her name and that of her husband with Rajbanshi Nagar Branch of State Bank of India. It is said that the initial 3-4 months after her entry into the matrimonial home was spent cordially but thereafter all the accused persons started torturing her on the pretext of receiving meager articles as presents at the marriage. She was also taunted in various ways which had an adverse effect on her mind and health and pressure was put on her for bringing a motorcycle and refrigerator from her father. It is alleged that her father-in-law both Bhaisurs and Gotinis used to abuse her under small pretext. She was occasionally prevented from taking food and water and was also prohibited from meeting others. The complainant claims to have tried to inform her father about these developments through letter, which she handed over to a boy for posting but this was detected by her in-laws whereupon she was brutally assaulted and attempt was made to strangulate her. However, she managed to save herself, whereupon she was given to understand that if she did not bring the motorcycle and refrigerator she would be killed. However, she managed to save herself, whereupon she was given to understand that if she did not bring the motorcycle and refrigerator she would be killed. The complainant claims to have narrated this incidents and facts to her parents when she went to her parental home and they in turn assured her that things would become normal if she bore, the burden for sometime. It is alleged that whenever her husband went to Patna in connection with his job, he stayed in his Sasural and whenever she requested him to take her back, he would assault her and also threatened her not to go to the police or the court or else she and her family members would be involved in a criminal case. 3. It is further alleged that a few days back it came to her knowledge that the accused persons on payment of huge sum of dowry had got her husband married to another lady. On receipt of such information, she claims to have gone to her matrimonial home on 21.7.2002 but she was prevented from entering the matrimonial home and all her Stri-dhan was confiscated and when she asked for the same she was brutally assaulted and was ousted from the matrimonial home whereupon she returned to her parental home. She claims to have approached the women cell of Kotwali Police Station but they refused to register her case whereupon she went to City Supdt. Of Police, Patna, but there also no case was registered whereupon she was compelled to file the complaint case. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they had been roped in this case only because they happened to be related to the husband of the complainant, although being separated from the husband of the complainant, they live separately from the husband of the complainant and have no concern with his affairs. This, according the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is available from paragraph No. 136, 137, 155, 156 and 157 of the case diary. It is also submitted that the alleged demand for the motorcycle and refrigerator were made in the matrimonial home of the complainant in East Champaran, and as such, the Patna court had no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint. It is also submitted that the alleged demand for the motorcycle and refrigerator were made in the matrimonial home of the complainant in East Champaran, and as such, the Patna court had no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint. Reference in this connection was sought to be placed on the case of Suresh Das Harijan V/s. State of Bihar, 2007 3 PLJR 269 and Y. Abraham Ajith V/s. Inspector of Police, 2004 8 SCC 100 . 5. I have perused the complaint petition and therefrom it appears that the marriage took place as far back as in the year 1999 and the Opp. Party No. 2 since then was living with her husband at Chakiya in the district of East Champaran. All alleged acts of torture etc. took place at the home of the husband save and except one part of the allegation when the complainant was assaulted by her husband at her Naihar in Patna in course of his visit to Patna. However, this alleged assault was not in respect of demand for additional dowry in the form of motorcycle and refrigerator but was in respect of the complainants desire to be taken back to her matrimonial home. Therefore, it is apparent that the case falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the court in East Champaran in view of Section 177 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: Ordinary place of enquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 6. From what has been discussed above, it is clear that since all parts of the alleged occurrence of assault, abuse and demand of additional dowry was made within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Motihari in the District of East Champaran, it was only the court in the Judgeship of East Champaran at Motihari which had the jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance in the matter and the court at Patna had no jurisdiction to make any enquiry or conduct the trial as no part of the occurrence took place within its territorial jurisdiction, save and except the incident of assault and abuse which she faced in her parental home at the hands of her husband. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. The lower court is directed to return the complaint to Opp. Party No. 2 for filing the same before the appropriate court, if so advised.