Judgment : In the present application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused petitioners have sought to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No.107/07 dated 26-04-2007 under Section 498A/406 IPC on the ground that the offences as alleged in the FIR took place at village Hardi within the district of Gorakhpur. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly at Chinsura had no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint with a direction upon Officer-in-Charge, Chinsura P.S., to treat the same as an FIR and also to investigate the case in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The accused petitioners have, however, contended, inter alia, in their petition that marriage between the defacto complainant and accused petitioner no.1, Shri Birendra @ Birendra Kumar Barun (Kanujia) in Gorakhnath Temple at Gorakhpur in the state of Uttar Pradesh in presence of the family members of both sides on 17-11-2005. Thereafter, home ceremony was held at village Hardi. According to the petitioners, the defacto-complainant was never subjected to any torture either physical or mental. Rather the accused petitioner no.1 filed a case being O.S.30/07 on 29-01-2007 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Osti for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife, Smt. Pratima Lal, O.P. No.2 and her father, Sri Satyanarayan Lal. On receipt of summons, the opposite party wife filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, Chinsura and in terms of learned Magistrate’s order, FIR was registered and investigation was started as per order of learned Magistrate. Since no part of alleged offences took place within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Magistrate, Chinsura, accused persons pray for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending against them before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura. The sole point for consideration in the instant petition is whether this Court is required to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against the accused petitioners in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura on the ground that learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the Chinsura P.S. Case No.107/2007 dated 24-06-2007 under Section 498A/406 of the IPC. Mr. Soumitra Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint has committed serious illegality by allowing the proceeding to continue in his Court. Mr. Soumitra Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint has committed serious illegality by allowing the proceeding to continue in his Court. According to him, in view of provisions as laid down in Section 177 Cr.P.C., since no part of the alleged cruelty or harassment arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura, it is not within his competence to proceed with this case. According to him, the criminal proceeding in question against the accused petitioners is liable to be quashed only on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction. In this connection, he refers to the case of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (57) ACC 264 and (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 210 and argues that since no part of the cause of action arose within the district of Chinsura, the concerned Chief Judicial Magiatrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He has also referred to another ruling of the Single Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal 3560, wherein it has been laid down that complaint for offence under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be filed within the jurisdiction of Court where her parents’ house is located for the simple reason that no part of the incidents alleged in the complaint occurred in any place within the jurisdiction of Chinsura Police Station. Therefore, he has concluded his argument by urging this Court to quash the criminal proceeding under Section 498A/406 IPC pending against the accused petitioners. Mrs. Pranoti Goswami, appearing for the State, however, does not dispute such statement as advanced on behalf of the petitioner. She has, in fact, supported the contention of the petitioners by making statement to the effect that this Court in its inherent jurisdiction should quash the proceeding in question. A close scrutiny of materials and circumstances on record reveals that the defactocomplainant wife, refused to accept the advocate’s letter together with a copy of this petition on 25-02-2008 when the same was sent to her through EMS Speed Post and an Affidavit-of-Service annexing the undelivered envelope has been affirmed on behalf of the petitioners to that effect. A close scrutiny of materials and circumstances on record reveals that the defactocomplainant wife, refused to accept the advocate’s letter together with a copy of this petition on 25-02-2008 when the same was sent to her through EMS Speed Post and an Affidavit-of-Service annexing the undelivered envelope has been affirmed on behalf of the petitioners to that effect. Therefore, none appears on behalf of the defactocomplainant wife, O.P. No.2 to contest this revisional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On perusal of several rulings so cited on behalf of the petitioners, it is quite evident that the wife4 complainant leaving her matrimonial house, alleging cruelty for dowry demand and staying in her parents’ house in a different State, is not legally permitted to file criminal case against her husband and in-laws on the plea of continuing offence in the place where she resides together with her parents. A bare perusal of FIR makes it quite clear that offences as alleged against the petitioners were committed under the District of Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There is no whisper within the four corners of FIR that the petitioner’s wife was ever tortured either physically or mentally in her parents’ house. In absence of any such averment in the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint. Such being the legal and factual position, there is no other alternative but to quash the present criminal proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel for the State has, however, caused production of the relevant Case Diary of the criminal case. A close look to the Case Diary reveals that all the accused petitioners have already been charge-sheeted under Section 498A/406 IPC on 30-09-2007. There is no doubt that there are corroborative statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, but at this juncture, it is not necessary to go into the merit of the case vis-à-vis the statements of witnesses. There is no doubt that there are corroborative statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, but at this juncture, it is not necessary to go into the merit of the case vis-à-vis the statements of witnesses. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the prosecution has failed to establish by furnishing cogent materials to indicate that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura has any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by the petitioner, whenever, on the face of the complaint, it is absolutely clear that all the incidents as alleged, took place within Hardi P.S. in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Although I have already observed in preceding paragraph that the instant criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed, I am of the opinion that it is absolutely permissible for the wife to redress her grievances against her husband and in-laws against whom chargesheet under Section 498A/406 IPC has already been filed before the learned Magistrate by the investigating agency. In this context, it would be appropriate for this Court to rely upon a ruling reported in 2008 (2) AICLR 673. Accordingly, it is held that whenever no part of the cause of action arose within the District of Hooghly, Chinsura, the inevitable conclusion would follow that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and as a consequence, the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate are liable to be quashed and the complaint should also be returned to the complainant. If so wishes, she may file the complaint before the appropriate Court at Uttar Pradesh to be dealt with in accordance with law. There is also another ruling of this High Court reported in (2007) 1 C.Cr.L.R. (Cal) 800. Since the offences as alleged were committed by the accused persons in the matrimonial home at Uttar Pradesh, the cause of action must arose in Uttar Pradesh and since no part of the cause of action for the offences took place at Chinsura, the offences cannot be said to be a continuing offence. Therefore, it is true that the learned Magistrate, Chinsura had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, it is true that the learned Magistrate, Chinsura had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Having regard to the legal and factual aspects as involved in this case, I am of the definite view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the instant criminal proceeding is quashed with a direction upon the defacto-complainant wife to take back the complaint/FIR from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura and to submit the same before the appropriate forum in Uttar Pradesh, if she so chooses and such complaint, if filed, would be dealt with in accordance with law by the appropriate Court. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding arising out of Chinsura Police Station Case No.107/07 dated 26-04-2007 under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsura stands quashed. The defactocomplainant wife is, however, at liberty to take back the complaint/FIR and to re-file before the appropriate Court at Uttar Pradesh. In the event of re-filing of such complaint, the appropriate Court would proceed with the said complaint in accordance with law. The criminal revisional case being CRR 3824 of 2007 thus stands disposed of. The Case Diary be returned. Criminal Section is directed to supply the urgent certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.