JUDGEMENT 1. This petition is directed against the order taking cognizance dated 6.1.2006 passed in CR. No. 266 of 2005, Tr. No. 1838 of 2006 by the SDJM, Samastipur. 2. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with accused no. 1 on 3rd May, 1996 at Village-Balani, P.S.-Bahera, District-Darbhanga. After marriage she was brought at Village-Narikala, P.S.-Tisiauta, District- Vaishali and after Bidai to her Sasural at Vaishali she went alongwith her husband and mother-in-law to Patna at Quarter No.36/48, Shastrinagar and there she was kept for 15 days properly, thereafter it is alleged that the mother-in-law started demanding motorcycle and thereafter a demand of Hero Honda motorcycle was made by the husband and father-in-law. The father of the complainant came to Patna and took her to Village-Balani, P.S.-Bahera and thereafter second marriage (Duragaman) was solemnized in 1999 and the victim was brought to Village-Narikala, Vaishali and there again father-in-law demanded motorcycle and Godrej Almirah and passed sarcastic remarks and then the complainant was brought to Patna and was subject to cruelty and thereafter she was driven out. The complainant informed his father and maternal grandfather and thereafter 30,000/- was paid. Further allegation is that subjecting cruelty continues and father-in-law alleged to have tried to established sexual relationship but on protest she was thrown out and then she went. The complainant returned back to her Nayahar at Balani and disclosed the offence and thereafter from Balani she went to Madhubani and thereafter went to Samastipur to her Nanas house. Then she again came to Patna. In view of a comprise but she was thrown out to her Nayahar where she was assaulted and then she was sent to Darbhanga and thereafter from Darbhanga she went to Madhubani at the house of her Nana and after the superannuation of Nana from service she came to Samastipur. 3. Then she again came to Patna. In view of a comprise but she was thrown out to her Nayahar where she was assaulted and then she was sent to Darbhanga and thereafter from Darbhanga she went to Madhubani at the house of her Nana and after the superannuation of Nana from service she came to Samastipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the entire allegation in the complaint or no part of the allegation about subjecting cruelty has been stated to be in the jurisdiction of Samastipur as no part of the occurrence for offence under Sections 323, 498, 379, 494 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code have been stated to come under the jurisdiction of Samastipur District and hence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur has no jurisdiction or the Judicial Magistrate of Samastipur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or issue processes and contend that no allegation about the subjecting cruelty or assault has been said to have occurred in the jurisdiction, of Samastipur. 4. From perusal of the complaint petition it is not disputed that ho part of the occurrence for offence under 498A, 323 and 494 has occurred in the jurisdiction of Samastipur and hence no part of the occurrence took place in the jurisdiction of Samastipur and hence Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. specifically prohibits the jurisdiction of the Magistrate if the occurrence has not taken place within his local jurisdiction and has placed reliance upon decision reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 (Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.) as well as the decision reported in 2008 (3) PLJR (SC)367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan) where it has been held that if no part of cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned then the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and has quashed the proceeding with a direction that the complaint petition be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party the complainant, however, having relied upon decision reported in Prem Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Kerala decision on 19.12.2008 which is equivalent to citation 2009 (1) SCALE 452 (Prem Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Kerala). 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party the complainant, however, having relied upon decision reported in Prem Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Kerala decision on 19.12.2008 which is equivalent to citation 2009 (1) SCALE 452 (Prem Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Kerala). However, he does not dispute the factual as well as legal position that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. However, it has been contended that the case may be transferred to the court of the jurisdiction of Samastipur. 6. However, in case reported in Prem Kumar & Ors. V/s. State of Kerala equivalent citation 2009 (1) SCALE 452 the First Information Report was lodged at Kadkkavoor Police Station, Kerala and a question was raised that though First Information Report lodged earlier at Courtallan Police, Tamil Naidu with regard to the same offence was reported and on enquiry found no criminal offence so was dropped and hence contended that the point raised that Kadkkavoor Police Station, Kerala has no jurisdiction. However, in the fact and circumstance of that case some of the part of the cause of action stated to have been arose in Kadkkavoor Police Station and hence, under the fact and circumstance of that case it was observed that word ordinary occurring in Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. must be read subject to special provision of the Code i.e. exceptions contained in Sections 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. be followed and in that circumstance held that the First Information Report lodged as Kadkkavoor Police Station was maintainable. 7. However, no such explanation is applicable to the case at hand as no part of the occurrence of subjecting cruelty has been alleged at Samastipur and hence, the Samastipur Court has no jurisdiction as no part of the occurrence or cause of action arose at Samastipur and hence, the Magistrate, at Samastipur has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and hence, in consequence the order taking cognizance and the proceeding the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur is not sustainable as without jurisdiction and hence, the impugned order is set aside as the Court at Samastipur has no jurisdiction and in consequence the proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur is quashed. However, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in an appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.