ORDER : By the Court - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. 2. The order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case No.45 of 2012 under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners is being sought to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 3. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had married to one Himanshu Pandey, who unfortunately died within a month of the marriage. After Shradh ceremony was over, the accused persons conveyed to the parents of the complainant that they need not to worry as they are ready to get his second son Onkar Nath Pandey married to the complainant. After a year, the complainant married with Onkar Nath Pandey in February, 2005 after observing all rituals. Since then, she was living with Onkar Nath Pandey as wife and husband. Till 2010, she lived in her in-laws' place quite happily. When she did not bear any child, relationship in between the wife and husband and even with the in-laws became strained and they started saying that they will be getting his son married with another woman and they started forcing the complainant to go to her parents' house. She was being not only subjecting to assault and abuses but were being not provided with cloths and thereby all kinds of torture were being inflicted upon her. 4. Further case is that parents of Onkar Nath Pandey even fixed the marriage of Onkar Nath Pandey with another woman. When the complainant did not agree to go back to the parents' house, the accused persons even tried to strangulate her to death and they took away all her ornaments and the money. Thereafter Onkar Nath Pandey took her to Latehar and left her there. 5. On such accusation, a complaint was lodged as Complaint Case No.45 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The court after holding enquiry took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, vide order dated 7.1.2013. 5. On such accusation, a complaint was lodged as Complaint Case No.45 of 2012 under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The court after holding enquiry took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, vide order dated 7.1.2013. That order has been challenged to be bad on account of the fact that the court which has taken cognizance lacks territorial jurisdiction. 7. Mr.P.C. Tripathy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that whatever acts constituting offence either under Section 498A or other offences under which cognizance has been taken, have been alleged to have been committed, those overt acts have been committed at Kushinagar and not at the place where the complaint was filed and thereby the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police [ (2004) 8 SCC 100 ] and also in a case of Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [ (2008) 11 SCC 103 ]. 8. As against this, Mr.Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that it is true that all the acts relating to physical cruelty were committed at Kushinagar but mental cruelty can be said to have been inflicted to the complainant at Latehar where Onkar Nath Pandey brought the complainant and left her and therefore, part of the cause of action can certainly be said to have accrued at Latehar. In that event, the court cannot be said to have committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the offences. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that allegation seems to be there of subjecting her to assault and other kinds of torture but it never appears to be the case of the prosecution that such infliction of torture was on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. However, it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that even if such allegation of demand of dowry is not there, the case would fall within the second limb of Section 498A as the complainant was even attempted to be murdered but for that also whatever act was committed, that was committed at Kushinagar and not at Latehar. However, it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that even if such allegation of demand of dowry is not there, the case would fall within the second limb of Section 498A as the complainant was even attempted to be murdered but for that also whatever act was committed, that was committed at Kushinagar and not at Latehar. The case seems to have been filed at Latehar as Onkar Nath Pandey said to have brought the complainant to Latehar and left her there but no such allegation is there to the effect that any demand was made at Latehar or she was subjected to torture at Latehar which are two main ingredients for attracting offence under Section 498A and therefore, cause of action can never be said to have accrued at Latehar. 10. In such event, the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that only that court within those territorial jurisdiction cause of action accrued would be competent to take cognizance of the offence. 11. Thus, I do find that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and thereby the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. 12. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.