ORDER (Passed on this 4th day of October, 2012) The applicant complainant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dt. 3.8.2010 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 110/2010 whereby allowing the criminal revision of the respondent No.1 to 4 the order dt. 27.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore, in Criminal Case No. 19122/2007 dismissing the application of the respondent filed under Section 177 read with Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. has been set-aside and by allowing such application, the private complaint filed by the applicant has been directed to be returned to her to file the same before the Competent Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 02. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that, the applicant herein filed a private complaint against the respondents in the aforesaid Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class for taking cognizance of the offence of Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC against the respondents. After entertaining such complaint and recording the depositions of the complainant and her witnesses under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. the cognizance of such offence was taken by the Court against the respondents and they were summoned. In response of summons after appearance, the respondents have filed an application under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. contending that the aforesaid Court of Indore, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On consideration, such application was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dt. 27.1.2010. Being dissatisfied by this order, the respondents herein filed the revision before the Session Court. On consideration, such revision was allowed and inter alia it was held that subsequent to the marriage of the complainant with the respondent No.1 Amit Kumar they resided at Katni and the alleged incident happened at Katni. It was also held that as per allegation in the complaint even in continuation any of the alleged offence was not committed by the respondents or any of them in the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court of Indore. 03. In view of such finding, the aforesaid direction to return the complaint to the complainant was given by the Session Court on which the applicant complainant has come to this Court with this revision. 04. 03. In view of such finding, the aforesaid direction to return the complaint to the complainant was given by the Session Court on which the applicant complainant has come to this Court with this revision. 04. The appearing Counsel of the applicant after taking me through the papers annexed with the revision memo along with the impugned orders argued that as per the averments of the complaint initially offence was committed by the respondents at Katni and subsequent to that in continuation of the same, some of the respondents came to Indore and committed such acts stated in the complaint. In support of such contention, she also referred some averments of the private complaint filed before the Trial Court and said that as per settled proposition of law, whenever any offence of cruelty as defined in Section 498-A of the IPC is committed by the accused like respondents, initially at one place and subsequently in continuation of the same some other act was committed by them or any of them in such a situation, the Court of both the places have a territorial jurisdiction over the matter and in such premises the Trial Court has not committed any error either in entertaining the private complaint of the applicant or in dismissing the aforesaid application of the respondents and prayed for setting-aside the impugned order of the Session Court by restoring the order of the Trial Court by allowing this revision. She also placed her reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in AIR 1997 SC 2465 . So also of this Court in the matter of Pawan Vishwakarma and others vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2010 vol. (4) MPLJ page 371. So also another decision of this Court in the matter of Satish Kumar Sahu and others vs. State of M.P. reported in 2006 Vol.(2) MPLJ Page 186. 05. On the other hand responding the aforesaid argument by justifying the impugned order the Revisional Court the respondent Counsel Shri Chandwaskar, has said that such order being based on correct proposition of the law does not require any interference at this stage. 05. On the other hand responding the aforesaid argument by justifying the impugned order the Revisional Court the respondent Counsel Shri Chandwaskar, has said that such order being based on correct proposition of the law does not require any interference at this stage. In continuation he said that even on taking into consideration the facts stated in the private complaint by the applicant as accepted in its entirety even then the alleged offence under Section 498-A or under Section 406 of the IPC are not made out or in any case the ingredients to commit such offence at Indore, is not made out against any of the respondents. By referring para 6 to 8 of the private complaint, he said that according to applicant himself the alleged cruelty was committed on her by the respondents at Katni and not at Indore. So in such premises also the Indore Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the matter and in such premises, his application filed under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. was rightly allowed by the Revisional Court by setting-aside the order of the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of this revision. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Y.Abrham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 and also of this Court in the matter of Kirti.Prakash. Saxena v. State of M.P. and another reported in 2010 Cri.Law Journal 1351. 06. Having heard keeping in view the argument advanced by the Counsel, I have carefully gone through the record of the Courts below along with the impugned order. In the available factual matrix of the matter I am of the considered view, that the Subordinate Revisional Court has committed grave error in setting-aside the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application of the respondents filed under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. 07. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix before giving any findings in the matter, I would like to reproduce the concerning extract of decided cases of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. 08. In the matter of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee (supra) the Apex Court has held as under:- Para 7:-” Despite service being effected on the private respondents, no one has appeared for any of the accused-respondents. 08. In the matter of Smt. Sujata Mukherjee (supra) the Apex Court has held as under:- Para 7:-” Despite service being effected on the private respondents, no one has appeared for any of the accused-respondents. We have taken into consideration the complaint filed by the appellant and it appears to us that the complaint reveals a continuing offence of mal treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused-respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part. Therefore, clause © of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly attracted. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to proceed with the criminal case. Since the matter is pending for long, steps should be taken to expedite the haring. The appeals are accordingly allowed.” 10. On arising the occasion the aforesaid view of the Apex Court was followed by this Court in the matter of Pawan and ors. (supra) in which it was held as under:- Para 6:-“If the alleged incident happened in the territorial jurisdiction of one Court then certainly the jurisdiction of the Court would be governed by section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code but whenever initially the alleged offence is committed by the accused in the territorial jurisdiction of one Court and in continuation the same is committed by all of the accused or any of them in the territorial jurisdiction of some other Court then in such premises, in view of aforesaid provision of Section 178(b),(c) and (d) of Criminal Procedure Code all the accused/applicants could be prosecuted and tried in such other Court also in whose jurisdiction in continuation the alleged offence was committed by some of the applicants/accused out of the applicants who committed such offence initially in the territorial jurisdiction of some other Court.” 11. Apart the above, taking into consideration the stage of the criminal case such question was also answered by this Court in the matter of Satish Kumar (supra) in which it was held as under: Para 6:-“Hon'ble Apex Court also considered sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and opined that when there is no whisper of an act which have been committed under any Act constituting the offence at place then the logic of continuation of offence cannot be applied. But in the present case there are specific allegations made by the witness to the effect that the complainant was actually threatened at Vijay Nagar, Indore also which means cruelty and harassment was committed at Indore also. I am afraid, this is not a stage to appreciate the evidence or to give any finding on this aspect of the matter as to whether any part of the Act constituting the offence has been committed at Indore or not. This argument can be considered by the trial Court after recording of the evidence.” 12. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid cited cases on examining the factual matrix of the case at hand, it is apparent from the complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. that the applicant got married with the respondent No.1 on 13.12.2006 and subsequent to marriage, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondents in the matrimonial family at Katni, and such cruelty was committed on account of non-fulfilling the demand of dowry. In continuation of such activities as alleged the respondents also abated her to commit the suicide on dated 16.1.2007. On receiving such information by the parental family of the applicant she was brought from the matrimonial home to her parental house at Indore, on 18.1.2007. Some allegations with respect of demand of the sum is also stated in the complaint. In continuation of such activities as alleged the respondents also abated her to commit the suicide on dated 16.1.2007. On receiving such information by the parental family of the applicant she was brought from the matrimonial home to her parental house at Indore, on 18.1.2007. Some allegations with respect of demand of the sum is also stated in the complaint. It is also stated that after the applicant came to Indore, she was subjected to threat and mental cruelty on telephone and when some respondents on request of the member of parental family of the applicant came to Indore to settle the matter, at that time, also some threat was given by them to the applicant and to his life and before leaving Indore, such respondents lodged a false complaint against the applicant on which the applicant gave a report in writing to the Superintendent of Police Indore, with respect to the offence committed by the respondents which is made punishable under Section 498-A and Section 406 of the IPC. As such from mere perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that initially act of the alleged cruelty either mentally or physically was committed by the respondents with the applicant in her matrimonial home at Katni, and in continuation of that some of the respondents came to Indore, as stated above and committed the act of alleged cruelty at Indore also. Besides this, they also committed such act on telephone from Katni to Indore. 13. In the aforesaid fact the principles laid down in the above mentioned cited cases is directly applicable to the present case and, therefore, the impugned complaint of the applicant could be entertained by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore, by virtue of Clause (b),(c) and (d) of Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. and in such premises, it was rightly entertained by the Trial Court and pursuant to it, the application of the respondents filed under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court but the Subordinate Session Court has set-aside such order contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid cited cases, therefore, the impugned order of the Revisional Court could not be sustained at this stage and the same deserves to be set-aside by restoring the order of the Trial Court. 14. 14. So far as the case laws cited on behalf of the respondents are concerned, it is suffice to say that in the matter of Y.Abraham Ajith (supra) the case was decided taking into consideration that entire incident had happened at one place and not at other place which is not the situation in the case at hand hence, such citation is not helping the respondents in the present scenario. The case of Kirti Prakash Saxena was also decided in similar circumstances taking into consideration that at the place where the case was filed not a single incident had happened, therefore, this case is also not helping the respondents. So far as the principles laid down in this case are concerned, this Court did not have any dispute but in the present scenario of the same are not applicable. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, by allowing this revision the impugned order passed by the Session Court is, hereby, set-aside. Pursuant to it, the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application of the respondents filed under Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. is, hereby, restored and the case is remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. It is made clear, that during trial the respondents herein shall be at liberty to raise all the available defence and objections and the same shall be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits without influencing from any observations or findings given by the Trial Court in its impugned order or by this Court in the aforesaid order. Such direction is being given keeping in view that after recording the evidence the Trial Court has to decide the matter on appreciation of the evidence and not only on the basis of prima facie circumstances mentioned in the private complaint. The parties of the matter are directed through their Counsel to appear in the aforesaid Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore, firstly on dated 19.11.2012 to assist the Court in holding the trial of the matter. 16. The revision is allowed as indicated above.