JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Opposite Party No. 2 who has appeared suo motu. 2. The informant opposite party no. 2 is stated to have been married to one Sanjay Kumar Saini on 16.4.2000. The petitioners are the brother, unmarried sister, father, mother and niece of the latter. They are aggrieved by their prosecution in Gaya Sadar P.S. Case No. 66/07 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections. The petitioners then preferred an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected. 3. Though several grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioners questioning their very prosecution itself, this Court does not consider it necessary to deal with all of them except one. The other grounds so urged are left open for both sides to canvass at an appropriate later stage, if necessary. 4. Suffice it to note that a challenge has been laid out that the allegation read as verbatim discloses no cause of action at Gaya which only happens to be the paternal home of the informant. The entire allegations pertain to alleged occurrences at Ranchi and also at Aurangabad where the husband of the informant was posted. The Court at Gaya, therefore, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter. This aspect of the matter was specifically raised in the discharge application also but has not at all been considered. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the allegations are that her husband ultimately left her at Gaya when she failed to fulfil his demands and that of his family. That according to learned counsel, vests jurisdiction in the Court at Gaya when the allegations shall form a continued cause of action originating at Ranchi and continuing up to Gaya, as it was in the aforesaid circumstances she has been forced to proceed to Gaya and resides deprived of the matrimonial home. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment reported in 2008(3) PLJR (SC)367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) in which relying upon (2004)8 SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment reported in 2008(3) PLJR (SC)367 (Bhura Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) in which relying upon (2004)8 SCC 100 (Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. V/s. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.), the Apex Court has held at Paragraph 4 as follows: "4. The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law." 7. The impugned order dated 21.10.2009 is therefore not sustainable, it is accordingly set aside with regard to the petitioners. 8. This Court holds that the proceedings at Gaya are not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction. The entire proceedings in Gaya Sadar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2007 are accordingly quashed to that extent and purpose only but with liberty to the opposite party no. 2 to file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. 9. The application is allowed to the extent indicated.