JUDGEMENT Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Cr. Misc. No. 44440 of 2006 filed by Anand Kumar Mishra and Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006 preferred by the remaining six persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 2319(C) of 2005 have been taken up together as in both the applications a prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 21.10.2005 passed in the said complaint case by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and 406 IPC as also Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the complaint case may be noticed with relative brevity. One Pushpa Mishra, the complainant and wife of petitioner Anand Kumar Mishra, impleaded in both cases as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A, 406, 324 and 307/34 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the hands of the accused on 2.7.1995, several subsequent dates thereafter and at 7 P.M. on 7.7.1995. The place of occurrence is said to be Birganj, Nepal and also the bye-pass road under Jakkanpur P.S. in Patna. 3. According to the complainant her marriage with accused Anand Kumar Mishra was solemnized on 2.7.1995 at Pandui Kothi Campus, Patna whereat various items and cash were given by the complainants father as per his financial status. It is alleged that she entered into the matrimonial home at Birganj in Nepal and after stay of 10 days she returned to her fathers place at Patna. She found the behaviour of the in-laws were not good and they used to misbehave and torture her. It is said that at the time of marriage the husband was employed in the Telecommunication Department, Govt. of Nepal, and at the time of filing of the complaint he was residing at New Delhi where he was employed in a private company. The complainant claims to have gone back to the matrimonial home again where demand for dowry in the form of money was made by her parents - in - law on one pretext or the other and these were fulfilled by her parents in the hope that their daughter, the complainant, would live in peace in the matrimonial home. The complainant claims to have gone back to the matrimonial home again where demand for dowry in the form of money was made by her parents - in - law on one pretext or the other and these were fulfilled by her parents in the hope that their daughter, the complainant, would live in peace in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that the complainant was surprised to see that her gotani was instrumental in instigating the mother - in - law and in pursuance thereof all the accused persons started torturing the complainant where accused No. 4 Arbind and his brother accused No. 7, Alok, frequently caught hold of her hair and pulled the same, sometime in the presence of guests and thereby the complainant suffered both physically and mentally. It is also alleged that the parents of the complainant frequently gave gifts and cash in the hope that the sasural people of her daughter would remain satisfied but the unending and greedy demand of the accused persons remained and she was assaulted severely and on certain occasions she sustained serious bleeding injuries but this was hardly any cause for sympathy being expressed by her in-laws. 4. It is further alleged that in the recent past on pressing demands by the husband for a luxurious car, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given in cash through which a Tata Indigo Diesel car was purchased at New Delhi by the husband. Thereafter the husband is alleged to have demanded a further sum of Rs. 5 lacs to purchase a flat in Delhi which was refused and in consequence thereof the complainant was confined inside a room without any food or water and she was frequently assaulted. It is further alleged that on 9.5.2004 her husband assaulted her and locked her along with the minor children. However, complainant managed to return to her parental home with her father and at the time of the filing of the complaint on 17.6.2006 she was living at Birganj with her in-laws. It is further alleged that on 9.5.2004 her husband assaulted her and locked her along with the minor children. However, complainant managed to return to her parental home with her father and at the time of the filing of the complaint on 17.6.2006 she was living at Birganj with her in-laws. It is also alleged that on 7.8.2005 the husband of the complainant came to Patna and asked her to accompany him in the Indica Car and after driving for some distance on the bye-pass road two unknown persons boarded the car and an attempt was made to throw her out of it on to the road in an attempt to kill her but she was saved as a Tata Sumo vehicle approached from the other side, whose occupants took pity upon her and gave her a lift up to Gardanibagh bridge from where she returned to her parental home. She is said to have visited the Jakkanpur P.S. at about 9 P.M. who on hearing her asked her to come on the following day and on the following day the police again evaded recording the case as they were busy in another case and this compelled the complainant to file the complaint. 5. Joint submissions by the petitioners of both cases is that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. So far as the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006 are concerned it is submitted that all the alleged accusations against them admittedly had taken place in Birganj in Nepal which was beyond jurisdiction of Indian territory and neither the provisions of the Penal Code nor the Dowry Prohibition Act would apply to the petitioners of that case. It was also submitted that the alleged allegations regarding the occurrence taking place at Delhi and attempt to kill her on the Bye-pass road has been alleged only against the husband, the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 44440 of 2006 and as such the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006 could not be made liable for the same. 6. Misc. No. 44440 of 2006 and as such the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006 could not be made liable for the same. 6. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a strained relationship between the husband and wife arose by reason whereof a legal notice was given to the father of the complainant by her husband on 15.5.2004 which was replied to on 26.5.2004 to which a rejoinder was given to the husband on 3.6.2004 and soon after the receipt of the legal notice a Misc. Information Petition No. 1252(M) of 2004 was filed by the complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on 17.5.2004 wherein no allegation of any overt act against these petitioners have been made and all accusations related to the husband. Thereafter the husband filed H.M.A. No. 371 of 2004 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage before the District Judge, Delhi in July 2004 which was followed by Maintenance Case No. 107 of 2004 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the complainant on 23.8.2004 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, and on the basis of the complainant filing Transfer Petition No. C 815 of 2004 on 2.11.2004 before the Supreme Court for transfer of the matrimonial case, the Supreme Court by order dated 4.4.2005 directed for transfer of H.M.A. Case No. 371 of 2004 to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the numerous litigation between the parties the instant complaint had been filed wherein the complainant on purpose had suppressed all these material facts. She has also, it has been submitted, suppressed the material fact of having filed complaints before the various authorities in Nepal. 8. So far the petition of the husband is concerned it has been submitted that a Panchayati was held by the Brahmarshi Samaj at Nepal on 26.3.2006 to which the complainant was a party and where a decision was taken to provide her certain rights in pursuance whereof the complainant was being paid maintenance. 9. It would appear from the complaint petition that the allegations so far as the petitioners of Cr. Misc. 9. It would appear from the complaint petition that the allegations so far as the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006 are concerned, all relate to incidents allegedly taking place at Birganj in Nepal and the Court at Patna had no jurisdiction to either maintain the complaint or take cognizance against the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006. Two reasons can be attracted therefor, namely, that the court at Patna had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence taking place in Nepal, which was not only outside jurisdiction of the District and State but also the country and secondly since the petitioners thereof do not appear to have been involved in the alleged occurrence taking place on the bye-pass road at Patna. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order taking cognizance against these petitioners in my opinion appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court and has to be struck down in the interest of justice. 10. So far as the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 44440 of 2006 is concerned, the petitioner - husband is alleged to have assaulted and abused the complainant at Delhi and locked her along with the minor children in a room for 4 days and prior thereto he in collusion with two unknown others is alleged to have made attempt to kill the complainant by attempting to throw her out of the moving vehicle. In this regard the Patna Court had full jurisdiction to maintain the complaint and take cognizance in the matter. 11. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances as also of the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C., Cr. Misc. No. 44440 of 2006 having no merit is dismissed and Cr. Misc. No. 34241 of 2006 for the reasons assigned in the foregoing paragraphs is allowed and the impugned order in respect of petitioners therein is set aside.