JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. All the five persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 187C of 2007, giving rise to Kadam Kuan (Patrakar Nagar) P.S. Case No. 174 of 2007, have preferred this application for quashing the entire F.I.R. of the aforesaid Kadam Kuan P.S., registered under Sections 498A, 379 I.P.C. as also Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. One Anshu Kumari, the complainant, filed the aforesaid complaint case which was transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof the aforesaid Kadam Kuan P.S. case came to be registered. According to the complainant/informant, her marriage with Sudhir Kumar Barnwal, petitioner No. 1, was solemnized on 2.5.2004 at Patna whereat gifts including cash, ornaments and other articles worth Rs. 10 Lacs was given in presentation by the parents of the informant. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant/informant is a Software Engineer working in Canada who had remained in Bettiah, the matrimonial home of the complainant, till September 2004 and, thereafter, had left for Canada leaving the informant in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that the husband of the complainant during his stay at Bettiah used to torture the complainant mentally and physically for not bringing handsome dowry commensurate with their status. It is further alleged that after the departure of her husband, the complainant/informant was subjected to severe harassment and humiliation at the hands of the remaining accused and she was insulted and abused for not bringing sufficient dowry and they kept insisting that her parents should furnish a substantial amount to compensate the loss suffered by them and recover their image as they claimed to have suffered in the estimation of the public and relatives. As the demand remained unfulfilled, her mother-in-law, on one occasion, caught hold of her neck and attempted to strangulate her to death even as the other accused persons instigated the mother-in-law to get rid of the complainant but somehow or the other she managed to save herself. The complainant haunted by shock and pain afflicted by her physical and mental torture at the greedy attitude of the accused persons conveyed her tales of woe to her parents, but her parents by dint of having spent valuable sum over the marriage could not entertain the demands of the in-laws of the complainant/informant. The complainant haunted by shock and pain afflicted by her physical and mental torture at the greedy attitude of the accused persons conveyed her tales of woe to her parents, but her parents by dint of having spent valuable sum over the marriage could not entertain the demands of the in-laws of the complainant/informant. The in-laws expressed their unwillingness to accommodate the complainant/informant in the matrimonial home unless the complainant/informant had arranged money to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs from her parents and eventually she became sick and indisposed and notwithstanding her indisposition she attempted to get into contact with her husband through internet and mobile phone but she was not bestowed with any favourable response. The accused persons are said to have neglected the complainant/informant in respect of her food and care and her physical condition deteriorated day by day. No medical care was given to her and the accused persons started taunting her and gave out that her husband would marry another lady in Canada after divorcing her. This, too, appears to be a plan of the accused to oust her from the matrimonial home in preparation for the divorce and of the husband contacting a second marriage. It is said that when it became imminent that by her stay in the matrimonial home she would not be able to survive any more she contacted her parents who came to Bettiah and took her away from Patna. The accused persons are said to have confiscated all her ornaments and belongings given to her at the time of marriage. Attempt to settle the disputes through persuasion and reasonings proved fruitless. Hence the complaint. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when petitioner No. 1 left for Canada, he was anxious that the informant joins him at Canada but as she did not have a passport an application was made for the same on 17.5.2004 but the issuance thereof having been delayed, the informant could not accompany him to Canada. Finally, petitioner No. 1 represented before the Chief Passport Officer through letter dated 20.3.2005 for expediting the matter. Finally, petitioner No. 1 represented before the Chief Passport Officer through letter dated 20.3.2005 for expediting the matter. It is further submitted that after the departure of the husband, the informant was staying with her parents in Nepal where her father was posted as Junior Registrar, Medicine Department at National Medical College, Shiksha Hospital, and in course thereof she used to often visit her sister at Mumbai where she was working and although the husband made several requests to the wife to stay with his mother at Bettiah she did not agree to the same as she had become more accustomed to the fast life of a Metropolitan City, and as such, she chose to stay with her parents and sister. It is further submitted that from a bare perusal of the allegation made in the F.I.R. it would be manifest that the informant was not ousted from her matrimonial home, rather she on of her own free-will and volition left the matrimonial home with her parents and was residing with them since March 2005. It is further submitted that it would be apparent from the allegations made in the F.I.R. that the entire allegations as attributed to the petitioners were allegedly committed at the matrimonial home in Bettiah in the district of West Champaran and no portion thereof took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Patna. It was further submitted that the court at Patna had erred in entertaining the F.I.R. when it did not have the jurisdiction for the trial to be held at Patna and without appreciating the fact directed the police to register the present F.I.R. 4. Reference in this connection was sought to be placed on the case of Suresh Das Harijan v. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 269 and Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police. 5. I have perused the F.I.R. and therefrom it appears that the marriage took place as far back in the year 2004 and the Opp. Party No. 2 since then was residing at the Matrimonial home in the district of West Champaran. All alleged acts of torture etc. took place at the home of the husband at Bettiah. 5. I have perused the F.I.R. and therefrom it appears that the marriage took place as far back in the year 2004 and the Opp. Party No. 2 since then was residing at the Matrimonial home in the district of West Champaran. All alleged acts of torture etc. took place at the home of the husband at Bettiah. Therefore, it is apparent that the case falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the court in West 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 torturing and demand of additional dowry was made within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Bettiah in the District of West Champaran it was only the court within the Judgeship of West Champaran at Bettiah 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 at Patna. 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. 8. 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.