ORDER By the Court.-Heard the parties. 2. Both these applications have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Seraikella P.S. Case No. 6 of 2010 (G.R No. 26 of 2010), including the orders dated 19.7.2010, under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against these three petitioners. 3. In Cr. M.P. No. 1537 of 2010, filed on behalf of petitioner-Chandan Raj Chaudhary, the husband an interlocutory application has been filed whereby the order refusing discharge has been challenge. In Cr. M.P. No. 802 of 2013, the petitioners namely, Nand Kishore Choudhary and Smt. Shakuntala Devi @ Shakuntala Choudhary, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law. 4. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. 5. The case of the prosecution is that a love marriage was solemnized at Bhubaneshwari Temple at Telco in between the informant and the petitioner Chandan Raj Chaudhary @ Chandan Rai Choudhary. After solemnizing marriage, the informant started living with the petitioner-husband in the house of her in-laws. For one year everything was normal but thereafter when differences arose in between the father and the son she was taken by her husband to other place to live in, where a son was begotten out of their wedlock. Thereafter her husband started living at Patna. Whenever he did come to Jamshedpur, he used to take her to the house of his father where father-in-law and mother-in-law, both, used to say her that they would be allowing her to live at their house only when she will be coming with the dowry. They also subjected her to mental torture. This happened at several occasions. Meanwhile, the husband also became hostile to her and he also started subjecting her to torture. 6. In course of time, the informant was transferred to Seraikella where the petitioner-husband started visiting her. The other day the petitioner-husband as well as other accused came to Seraikella Police Centre where they extended threat to the informant to leave the association of her husband as he has been married to elsewhere failing which she will be done to death. 7. The other day the petitioner-husband as well as other accused came to Seraikella Police Centre where they extended threat to the informant to leave the association of her husband as he has been married to elsewhere failing which she will be done to death. 7. On such allegation a case was lodged as Seraikella P.S. Case No. 6 of 2010 under Section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against these three petitioners. 8. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for inquiry and after holding inquiry the Court vide its order dated 19.10.2010 took cognizance of the offence, as aforesaid, against these three petitioners which has been challenged before this Court. 9. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband Chandan Raj Chaudhary, submits that in fact the petitioner-husband was married from before and only after he had married the another girl the informant came in contact with petitioner-Chandan Raj Chaudhary and subsequently live in relationship got developed in between them and, therefore, the informant cannot be said to be a legally married wife and as such, she cannot maintain the instant prosecution. 10. Mr. P.C. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the father-in-law and mother-in-law submits that according to the allegation, it was love marriage, rather as per the case of the petitioner of other case there was live in relationship and in that event, it is not expected that the petitioners being father-in-law and mother-in-law would put forth demand of dowry and on account of its non-fulfillment, the informant would be subjected to cruelty. Moreover, no cause of action has ever accrued at Seraikella and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be maintained on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction at Seraikella. 11. As against this, Mr. Moreover, no cause of action has ever accrued at Seraikella and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be maintained on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction at Seraikella. 11. As against this, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2, submits that a defence has been taken at this stage on behalf of the petitioner-husband that he had been married from before, which cannot be looked into at this stage whereas it is the specific case of the informant that the informant had married the petitioner-Chandan Raj Chaudhary legally and out of their wedlock, a son was begotten and that the second marriage, which the petitioner had claimed to have taken in fact was at later point of time and in such situation, it cannot be said that the informant cannot maintain her prosecution as she never happens to be the legally wedded wife. 12. Further, it was submitted that some overt act has been committed at Seraikella and thereby the Court at Seraikella has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that the marriage in between the informant and petitioner-husband is being denied by taking plea that the petitioner-husband had married earlier to another woman and during subsistence of marriage, live in relationship got developed in between the informant and the petitioner-husband. All these facts need to be determined during trial and, therefore, that cannot be a ground for quashing of the order taking cognizance. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance as well as order refusing discharge never warrants to be quashed. 14. Hence, this application stands dismissed. 15. However, these petitioners would be at liberty to take all the pleas, which have been taken in this application, before the Court below at an appropriate stage. Application dismissed.