JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in revision whereby the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur in Cr. Regular Case No. 157/2009 whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.J.M. No. 2, Udaipur against the petitioners and two others for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 420 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act . As per allegations levelled in the complaint , the complainant was an original resident of Udaipur. She alleged that after completing post graduation in Zoology, she started working in the Home Loan Department of I.C.I.C.I. Bank at a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is alleged that accused no. 2 and 3 i.e. Mahendra Kumar Saxena and Smt. Indira approached the complainant's parents at Udaipur and informed them that their son Manish Saxena had completed his M.B.B.S. degree from Russia and was doing private practice of Medicine at Kota and that they were desirous of marrying their son with the complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that due to the allurement given by the accused no. 2 and 3 i.e. Mahendra Kumar Saxena and Smt. Indira and believing their version that accused no. 1 Manish Saxena was a Doctor, the complainant's parents agreed to the proposal given by the accused to marry the complainant with Manish. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused persons told her parents that they were not in a position to bring their guests to Udaipur and thus, the marriage ceremonies would have to be performed at Kota. The complainant's parents in the hope of getting a good life partner for the complainant agreed to the proposal and accordingly Manish was married to the complainant at Kota City, Rajasthan on 6.2.2007 by performing Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage the complainant's relatives and her parents gave a large number of gifts, cash, ornaments etc. to the complainant as well as the accused persons. It was further alleged that at the time of marriage the complainant's relatives and her parents gave a large number of gifts, cash, ornaments etc. to the complainant as well as the accused persons. The complainant alleged that on the second day of the wedding, the complainant's parents and other relatives left Kota. The articles which had been given to the complainant as gifts in the marriage was taken by accused no. 3 and 4 on the pretext of showing the same to the neighbours. On that very day the accused Indira and Anjali allegedly taunted the complainant that no worthwhile articles had been given in the marriage. The complainant was specifically taunted that a Colour T.V., Sofa Set, Washing Machine and Gold Ornaments were not given to the mother in law and sister in law. When the complainant tried to speak in the presence of neighbours she was maltreated. In the night, all the four accused approached the complainant and forcibly took away her costly clothes, ornaments, cash etc. telling her that they would be given to her as and when required and that she would not be able to take care of these valuables. The complainant allegedly believing the words of the accused handed over the same to the accused no. 2 and 3. She further alleged that thereafter, on numerous auspicious occasions, festivals etc. the complainant asked for being provided with her ornaments etc. for wearing but the accused refused to do so. The complainant was informed that the ornaments had been kept mortgaged for repaying some loan. She was also told that she should ask her parents to arrange for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and ornaments for mother and daughter i.e. the accused no. 3 and 4 and Colour T.V., Sofa Set, Washing Machine etc. were also demanded. The complainant kept on tolerating this harassment with the hope that with passage of time , the accused would stop misbehaving with her but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that she stayed with the accused no. 1 from 6th Feb. to 9th Feb., 2007 but the behaviour of the accused i.e. her husband with her was inhuman during all these three days and she was taunted and abused for meeting the illegal demand. The complainant further alleged that she stayed with the accused no. 1 from 6th Feb. to 9th Feb., 2007 but the behaviour of the accused i.e. her husband with her was inhuman during all these three days and she was taunted and abused for meeting the illegal demand. On 10.2.2007 the complainant's parents came to Kota for taking her back to Udaipur and after reaching Udaipur she divulged about the cruel behaviour which she had faced to her parents. The complainant further alleged that her parents on coming to know of cruel behaviour meted out to the complainant talked with the accused. The accused allegedly told that the complainant's husband was coming to fetch the complainant and that the mistakes would not be repeated. Thereafter the complainant's husband came to Udaipur and apologized in front of her parents and then the complainant accompanied her husband back to Kota in the hope that her matrimonial life would improve . No sooner she reached Kota, the cruel behaviour of the accused resumed. The accused no. 2 and 3 in pursuance to a conspiracy left the switch of the gas open and asked the complainant to prepare tea but the complainant could discover that the gas cylinder had been left open and she could save herself or else she would have been killed. The complainant allegedly gave a message to her parents who again came to Kota and talked with the accused. The accused persons allegedly told her parents that if they were not able to meet the demand of Rs. 2 lacs, they will have to pay at least a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused. On this, the complainant's father handed over a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused Manish Saxena and Mahendra Kumar at Kota on 5.4.2007. The complainant's father thereafter went back to Udaipur. 3. The accused allegedly came to know from somewhere that the complainant's father was a rich man and that the wealth could be procured by torturing the complainant. With this objective in mind, the accused again started demanding Rs. 2 lacs, car, T.V., Fridge, Sofa etc. from the complainant and told her that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received had been utilised for paying the interest towards the loan taken on the house. The complainant again complained to her parents and thereupon her mother, her elder sister and brother-in-law came to Kota. 2 lacs, car, T.V., Fridge, Sofa etc. from the complainant and told her that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received had been utilised for paying the interest towards the loan taken on the house. The complainant again complained to her parents and thereupon her mother, her elder sister and brother-in-law came to Kota. They were also abused by the accused and the complainant was turned out of the house in the clothes which she was wearing on 2.4.2007. The complainant had to spend the night at her Mausa's house who was a resident of Kota and on the second day, the complainant's Mausa tried to put sense to the accused on which, they permitted the complainant to come back into the house. The complainant was allegedly forced to sign some blank papers. The complainant thereafter returned to Udaipur. On 6.6.2007, Labh Chand a distant relative of the accused no. 1 came to Udaipur and told the complainant and her parents that the accused no. 1 was not a qualified doctor and that the allurement about his being M.B.B.S. had been given just to get the complainant married with the accused Manish. Labhchand allegedly assured the complainant that it would be his responsibility of ensuring the wellbeing of the complainant and that she would not be maltreated in future. The complainant allegedly went back to Kota on this assurance. Then she went to Daman with the accused no. 1 Manish Saxena, and both stayed there for five days. The accused Manish could not procure a job at Daman, therefore, the complainant came back to Kota via Valsad and Surat. After staying at Kota for 10 to 15 days, the complainant was taken to Jaipur and there she was treated inhumanly by the accused Manish. She was beaten and and starved. The accused Manish allegedly talked with other accused on phone and tortured the complainant. The complainant allegedly wrote a few letters to her father about this inhuman treatment on 3.7.2007, 8.7.2007, 31.7.2007 and 6.8.2007. On 9.8.2007 the accused Manish again assaulted the complainant at the instigation of the other accused persons and she was not permitted to eat anything for three days. The complainant became mentally disturbed due to this continued maltreatment and was forced to take treatment at the Swaroop Hospital, Hawa Sarak, Near Sodala Police Station, Jaipur. On 9.8.2007 the accused Manish again assaulted the complainant at the instigation of the other accused persons and she was not permitted to eat anything for three days. The complainant became mentally disturbed due to this continued maltreatment and was forced to take treatment at the Swaroop Hospital, Hawa Sarak, Near Sodala Police Station, Jaipur. It was further alleged in the complainant that on 12.12.2007, the accused no. 1 assaulted the complainant and left her at her father's house and went away. Thereafter none of the accused persons contacted the complainant. Furthermore she was not provided any means of maintaining herself during this period. The complainant further alleged that her Stridhan articles which were retained by the accused no. 2 and 3 and were not returned back despite demand. The complainant also alleged that when Manish kept her at Jaipur, he told her that he had married a Muslim lady and had adopted Muslim religion. She also came to know that Manish also used to eat meat and and take drinks while the complainant was a staunch disciple of Lord Shiva was seriously perturbed because of this conduct of the accused Manish. She further alleged that her kitchen was defiled because of cooking of meat by the accused no. 1 and thus her religious sentiments were also hurt. It was alleged in the complainant that the accused no. 1 had beaten her and left her at the father's house on 12.12.2007. Thus, the Court at Udaipur had jurisdiction to try the case. 4. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation where F.I.R. No. 13/2008 was registered and investigation commenced. The complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.c. and the statement she repeated almost all the allegations levelled in the complaint. However, regarding the incident of 12.12.2007, she stated as below:- " 12-12-2007 dks eq>s figj NksM+dj pyk x;kA ysus ugha vk;kA " 5. The Investigating Agency upon conclusion of the investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused Manish Saxena, Mahendra Kumar and Smt. Indra for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. in the Court of the C.J.M. Udaipur. The petitioners herein raised an objection before the learned trial Judge regarding the Court at Udaipur having no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly it was prayed that the Court at Udaipur was not seized of the jurisdiction to frame charge against the accused. The petitioners herein raised an objection before the learned trial Judge regarding the Court at Udaipur having no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly it was prayed that the Court at Udaipur was not seized of the jurisdiction to frame charge against the accused. The learned trial Judge, however, was not convinced with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners and rejected the prayer made by the accused. The accused challenged the order by way of revision and the Revisional Court has affirmed the same. Now, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of miscellaneous petition, assailing the orders impugned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the admitted case of the complainant, there is no allegation that any of the offending acts allegedly committed upon the complaint took place at Udaipur. He contended that the marriage of the complainant with the accused was solemnized at Kota, they lived together at Kota, Daman and Jaipur. The acts of cruelty alleged by the complainant were committed upon the complainant at Kota and Jaipur. The only act at Udaipur which is alleged against the accused is that the accused Manish left the complainant at Udaipur. Learned counsel submitted that a simple act of leaving the complainant at Udaipur could not vest jurisdiction in the Court at Udaipur to try the case as it was not an act of cruelty covered by the term cruelty as defined in section 498A I.P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that from a bare reading of the statement of the complainant and the allegations leveled in the complaint, it is apparent that there is no such averment in the complaint that any of the part of the cause of action regarding the offences alleged took place with the complainant at Udaipur and thus the trial court has committed grave error in framing charge against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004(2) WLC(SC) Cri.-597 , Bhura Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in 2004(2) WLC(SC) Cri.-597 , Bhura Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2008(11) SCC-103 and Manish Ratan v. State of M.P. reported in 2006 (9) JT-630 in support of his contention and urges that the proceedings of the case going on in the Court of C.J.M. Udaipur being without jurisdiction deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, was not able to dispute the fact that the acts of cruelty, physical as well as mental with the complainant are all admitted to have been committed at the places beyond Udaipur. He, however, placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Kaushal Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Mala Gupta reported in 2011 (2) WLC(SC) Cr. 579 and Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2011(2) WLC(SC) Cr.-187 and urged that since the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. was a continuing offence the Court at Udaipur too has jurisdiction to try the case. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts and the record. There is no dispute in this case that the highest allegation of the complainant regarding the act of cruelty committed with her at Udaipur was levelled in para-8 of the complaint wherein the complainant mentioned that on 12.12.2007 the accused no. 1 assaulted the complainant and left her at her father's house at Udaipur. When the complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation, she simply alleged that on 12.12.2007, Manish Saxena left her at her father's house and never came to take her back. She has not alleged that she was assaulted and thereafter she was left at Udaipur. Thus, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether any act of the cruelty took place with the complainant within the jurisdiction of the court at Udaipur so as to justify the proceedings of the complaint in the said Court. She has not alleged that she was assaulted and thereafter she was left at Udaipur. Thus, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether any act of the cruelty took place with the complainant within the jurisdiction of the court at Udaipur so as to justify the proceedings of the complaint in the said Court. In Kushal Kumar Gupta's case (supra) the Apex Court observed that the dowry articles were to be returned at Patiala and thus by attracting the provisions of Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. the Court at Patiala had jurisdiction to try the case. This obviously is not the situation in the case at hand. In this case admittedly the dowry articles etc. were alleged entrusted to the accused at Kota and there is no such allegation of the complainant that dowry articles were promised to be returned back at Udaipur. Therefore, the case of Kushal Kumar Gupta is not of any help to the complainant. In the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para no. 7 that when the husband brought the complainant to Gaya she was warned that till his demands are met, she has has to stay at Gaya and if she tries to come back without meeting the demands she will be killed. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court at Gaya had jurisdiction to try the case because a part of cause of action arose at Gaya. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper of allegation by the complainant in her complaint or the statements of the complainant or any other witness that any of the acts of the accused which can be said to be constituting the offence under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. or the part thereof were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Udaipur. In this view of the matter, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Abraham Ajith's case (supra), Bhura Ram's case (supra) and Manish Ratan's case (supra) this Court is of the opinion that the Court at Udaipur has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioner. 9. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The learned C.J.M. Udaipur is directed to transfer the file of 157/2009 to the Court of C.J.M., Kota for trial. 9. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The learned C.J.M. Udaipur is directed to transfer the file of 157/2009 to the Court of C.J.M., Kota for trial. The C.J.M., Kota shall proceed with and try the case in accordance with law. The accused may appear before the C.J.M., Kota on or before 31.7.2013 whereafter the C.J.M., Kota shall fix the next date of hearing and proceed with the case after intimating the complainant.Petition allowed. *******