JUDGMENT H.C. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 7. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2013 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in Complaint Case No. 787 of 2013 / T.R No.1885 of 2013, whereby, the complaint case filed by the petitioner against the accused-opposite party Nos.2 to 7 has been dismissed upon enquiry, holding that the death of the deceased had taken place in the District of Ajmer, which falls under the State of Rajasthan, and the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to proceed further. 3. The facts giving rise to this case is that the daughter of the complainant, who was married to the opposite party No.2, Raushan Somi, died while the family was going in a car from Delhi to Azmer. The daughter of the complainant was badly injured on the road on N.H-8 within the police station of Gegal, in the State of Rajasthan. She was brought to hospital where she died in course of treatment. 4. The police case was instituted being Gegal P.S Case No.45 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, showing it to be a road accident, in which, the car was also badly damaged. The post-mortem report was also conducted at J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer, and the death was found to have been caused due to shock as a result of anti-mortem head and chest injuries. The death had been caused on 17.3.2013. 5. Thereafter, on 8.5.2013, the complaint case was filed in the Court below by the father of the deceased lady, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 787 of 2013, alleging therein that his daughter Nikhat Parween was married to the opposite party No.2, Raushan Somi on 5.4.2010 at Hazaribagh. The dowry was also taken in the said marriage and after the marriage, the girl was taken to Bokaro from where she was taken to Delhi where she was residing with her husband. The dowry was also taken in the said marriage and after the marriage, the girl was taken to Bokaro from where she was taken to Delhi where she was residing with her husband. It is alleged that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry and ultimately, the complainant had gone to Delhi and given an Alto car, but still, there was demand of rupees five lakhs, for which, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture by the husband and the in-laws. From the complaint petition, it appears that so far as the allegations against the accused-opposite parties of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture are concerned, the entire occurrence was alleged to have been committed at at Delhi, except the following allegations made in the complaint petition:- "11- ;g dh ifjoknh us cgqr feUur dh rks csVh dh lkl us budh csVh vkSj ukrh dks buds lkFk ,d ekg ds fy, fonk fd;kA ftls ysdj ifjoknh gtkjhckx vk x, vkSj vius lkFk ,d ekg rd j[ks fnukad 30 ekg vDrwcj ekg 2012 rd gtkjhckx esa gh jghA 12- ;g dh ifjoknh ds csVh dks llqjky okyksa fo'ks"kdj lkl] tsBkuh] tsB] uun] ifr] llqj us bruk izrkfM+r fd;k ftlds pyrs oks lw[kdj dkaVk gks xbZA 13- ;g dh nkekn viusa firk ds lkFk ekg vDVqcj ds vafre lIrkg esa gtkjhckx ¼cfy;k½ vk, vkSj /kedh nsrs gq, cksys fd dkj vkils ys fy;k ckdh 5 yk[k #i;k Hkh tYn ls ns fnft, ojuk vatke cqjk gksxkA oSls Hkh bl fj'rs ls ge [kq'k ugha gSA 14- ;g dh fnukad 25-11-2012 ekg uoEcj dks e`rd ds lkSgj ,oa llqj gtkjhckx vkdj mls fonk djkdj cksdkjks ys x;s tgk¡ vU; vfHk;qDrx.k igys ls gh ekStwn Fks ogk¡ igq¡pus ds ckn yM+dh dk Qksu ifjoknh ds ikl vk;k dh ikik vxys ekg fnYyh tkuk gSA buyksx iSlk ds fy, izrkfM+r dj jgs gSaA ifjoknh us vius nkekn] le/kh] le/ku] uun ls vkjtw feUur fd;kA ge cgqr xjhc gSaA fdlh rjg dkj fn;s vkSj Hkh #i;k O;oLFkk djds nsxsaA 15- ;g dh varr% vfHk;qDr la0 1 ifjoknh ds csVh ,oa cPps dks ysdj fnYyh pys x, tgk¡ mls ckj & ckj rax ,oa izrkfM+r djrs jgs bl ckjs esa ifjoknh dh csVh cjkcj budks [kcj djrh jgrh FkhA " 6. It is also alleged in the complaint petition that the opposite party No.2 was also having affairs with another girl at Delhi and his photographs with a girl have been annexed in the complaint petition. It is alleged that on 17. 3.2013 at about 10.00 A.M., the complainant was informed on phone by his son-in-law that they had met with an accident and the daughter was being taken to hospital and at about 12 noon, he was informed that his daughter had died. It is also stated that the father-in-law of the deceased asked the complainant to come to Delhi where the cremation of the dead body was to be done, whereupon, he refused to go there and asked them to bring the dead body to Hazaribag. On 18.3.2013, the dead body of the deceased was brought on the Ambulance of J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer and the other accused persons came to the complainant's place, where they informed that while they were going to Ajmer by car, the said car met with an accident, in which, the deceased died. On 18.3.2013, the dead body of the deceased was brought on the Ambulance of J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer and the other accused persons came to the complainant's place, where they informed that while they were going to Ajmer by car, the said car met with an accident, in which, the deceased died. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was wrongly informed about the accident of the deceased and the following allegations have been made in the complaint petition in this regard:- " 21- ;g dh ifjoknh dks mlds nkekn] le/kh] le/khu ifjokj ds vU; yksx tks vfHk;qDr gS us ;g xyr tkudkjh nh fd fudgr ijohu dh nq?kZVuk esa ekSr gqbZ gS cfYd lp rks ;g gS fd lHkh vfHk;qDrksa us feydj "kM;a= dj gR;k dh gSA ?kVuk dk "kM;a= jpk gS vkSj lHkksa us feydj vijk/k fd;k gSA ftlds fy, mUgsa naM nsuk U;k;ksfpr gSA 22- ;g fd lp rks ;g gS fd fnYyh ls dkj ls tc vtesj 'kjhQ ds fy, jokuk gq, rks jkLrs esa isVªksy iai ds ikl ,d gksVy ¼<kck½ esa #dsA fudgr ds ifr vkSj ts"B pk; Xykl esa ysdj vk, vkSj pk; fudgr dks ihus ds fy, fn;s ftls ihrs gh mls pDdj vkus yxk ,oa iSj gkFk [khapus yxkA rc oks ts"B ls cksyh fd cPps dks ys fyth,A eq>s vPNk ugha yx jgk gS blds ckn oks csgks'k gks xbZA 23- ;g fd vfHk;qDr la0 1]2]3 us feydj Hkkjh gfFk;kj ls fudgr ijohu ds lj ds fiNys fgLls esa tksj ls ekjk vkSj nkfgus gkFk ds ckag dks fdlh /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ¼CysM] pkdw½ ls diM+k lfgr frjNk dkV fn;k rFkk isV vkSj fluk ds chp esa etcwr jkWM ;k 'kfj;k dks ?kqlk fn;k ftlds dkj.k e`rd dk QsQM+k QV x;k vkSj 'kjhj dk lkjk [kwu fxjkdj bl gR;k dks nq?kZVuk dk #i nsus ds fy, dkj dks jksM ds fMokbMj ls tku cq>dj VDDj ekjdj dkj dks nq?kZVukxzLr dj fn;k vkSj pyrh xkM+h ls xsV [kksydj /kDdk ns fn;k blh dkj.k e`rd ds vykok fdlh vkSj dks [kjksap rd ugha vkbZA tcrd fudgr dh ekSr ugha gks xbZ rc rd ;s yksx iqfyl dks [kcj rd ugha gksus fn;kA 24- ;g fd vkuu&Qkuu esa vfHk;qDrksa us vius djhch yksxksa dh enn ls ;kstukuqlkj ?kVukLFky ij igq¡ps vkSj vLirky ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dh feyh Hkxr ls ekeys dks jQk nQk fd;k vkSj gR;k ds okjnkr dks nq?kZVuk esa cnyus dh dksf'k'k dhA 25- ;g fd ifjoknh fQj fnYyh x;s] vtesj 'kjhQ x;s vxy cxy ds yksxksa ls feys vkSj bl lp dks tku fy, fd budh csVh dh gR;k gqbZ gSA vkSj lcksa us bldh iq"Vh Hkh dhA ftlds fy, ;g ifjokn i= U;k;ky; esa lefiZr dj jgs gSa] fd vfHk;qDrksa dks leqfpr naM fn;k tk;A " 7. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed against the entire family members who are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law. Though it is stated in paragraph 25 of the complaint petition that the complainant-petitioner came to learn about these facts from the persons at Delhi and Ajmer Sharif, but no such person appears have been cited as witness in the complaint petition, rather it appears that the witnesses cited in the complaint, could not be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. No statement of any such witness has been brought on record in this application. The complainant and his witnesses, whose statements were recorded at the enquiry stage, have supported the case of the complainant. 8. The Court below has taken into consideration the F.I.R., which was instituted at Gegal Police Station in the District of Ajmer, Rajasthan, in which, the death of the victim, Nikhat Parween had been shown to be an accidental death. The Court below found that since the death of the deceased had taken place in the district of Ajmer in the State of Rajasthan, the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and accordingly, dismissed the complaint petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the offence of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry is a continuing offence and the part of the offence had taken place at Hazaribag also, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Amrendra Singh @ Munna Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 2010 (2) East Cr C 58 (Pat). It is further submitted that even though, the death of the deceased had taken place in the State of Rajasthan, the territorial jurisdiction was no bar for the Court below in taking cognizance and in this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agrawal and Ors., reported in 1999 (8) SCC, 686, wherein it has been held as follows:- "11. It is an erroneous view that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well. Rajesh Agrawal and Ors., reported in 1999 (8) SCC, 686, wherein it has been held as follows:- "11. It is an erroneous view that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well. *** *** *** 14. The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore a fallacious thinking that only a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the First Class his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the court which has jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that situation would reach only during the post-cognizance stage and not earlier." Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and in view of the fact that the offence is a continuing offence, part of which had taken place at Hazaribag also, the Court below had the jurisdiction to try the case. 10. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 7 have submitted that the entire complaint is malicious and the allegation made in the complaint petition cannot be believed prima facie. The deceased had died due to the road accident, for which, the police case was also instituted and the post mortem report issued by the J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer, has fully supported the same. It is also submitted that prior to the occurrence, no allegation whatsoever was ever made against the accused opposite parties for torturing the deceased for demand of any dowry and whatever allegations are there, those are only imaginary, and made after the death of the deceased, only in order to wrecking the vengeance against the accused-opposite parties. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, the death had taken place on 17.3.2013, but the complaint case has been lodged very belatedly, i.e., on 8.5.2013 and the same was rightly dismissed after the enquiry by the Court below. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, the death had taken place on 17.3.2013, but the complaint case has been lodged very belatedly, i.e., on 8.5.2013 and the same was rightly dismissed after the enquiry by the Court below. Learned counsels also submitted that even according to the complaint petition, no part of the occurrence had ever taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below and the Court below has rightly rejected the application. Learned counsels accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 11. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the death of the deceased which is said to have been caused due to road accident, is also prima facie established by the F.I.R., which was lodged in the District of Ajmer, on the date of accident itself and the post mortem examination was conducted at J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer, which also supports the accidental death of the deceased. After one and half months of the alleged occurrence, the present complaint petition was instituted, in which, for the first time the allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture had been made. Admittedly, the main allegation in the F.I.R pertains to Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, but the same had not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below, rather the alleged dowry death of the deceased if any, had been caused in the District of Ajmer, Rajasthan. So far as the allegation under Section 498-A is concerned, the entire allegations are there which allegedly had taken place at Delhi. Though it is stated in paragraphs 11 to 15 of the complaint petition, as quoted above, that the petitioner had brought back his daughter at Hazaribag, but the complaint petition shows that there was no allegation of any cruelty and torture at Hazaribag. It is only alleged that in the month of October 2012 , the husband and father-in-law of the deceased had come and demanded rupees five lakhs, stating that they were not happy with this relationship. Except this allegation, there is no other allegation of cruelty and torture at Hazaribag and admittedly, thereafter, the deceased was taken back to Delhi, via Bokaro. 12. Except this allegation, there is no other allegation of cruelty and torture at Hazaribag and admittedly, thereafter, the deceased was taken back to Delhi, via Bokaro. 12. The question that in such cases, which Court shall have the territorial jurisdiction to inquire into and try the offence, is no more res integra. In Manish Ratan and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr., reported in 2007 (1) SCC 262 , the law has been laid Down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, holding that Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ordains that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, it was committed. In the said case, the complainant was residing at Jabalpur along-with her husband and there was allegation of cruelty and torture at Jabalpur, only alleging that during the time of the Dussehra, the accused persons had ill-treated her so much that she left her house and saved her life by some means and reached her mama's house at Bhopal and from there, she reached her house and since then, she had been staying with her father at Datia. The Apex Court had held that the Court of Datia had no jurisdiction to inquire and try the case as the offence could not be held to be a continuing one, only because the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial home. In the present case also, according to the complaint petition, for some period, the deceased had lived at her parents' house at Hazaribag, but there is no allegation of any torture and cruelty during that period, except only the alleged demand of dowry. All other allegations either of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture, or of committing her dowry death were admittedly not committed within the jurisdiction of the Court below and in my considered view, the Court below has rightly held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and has dismissed the complaint petition. 13. The present case prima facie shows that the deceased met an unfortunate death in a road accident in the district of Ajmer, while she was going along-with her family members from Delhi to Ajmer and this is also supported by the F.I.R., which was lodged in the district of Ajmer, as also by the post-mortem report issued by J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer. The allegations have been made that the deceased was given some intoxicating drink and thereafter, she was assaulted by sharp cutting and hard & blunt weapons, causing injuries on her head, body and lungs and thereafter, a false picture of road accident had been made. Admittedly the complainant and his family members were not the witness to this occurrence, and they had no source of information of such wild allegations of assault on the deceased. Though, it is stated that the complainant came to learn about these facts from the persons at Delhi and Ajmer, but it appears that no eyewitness of these places has been cited in the complaint petition, nor the statement of any such witness has been brought on record of this application. These allegations clearly prima facie show that the case has been filed by the complainant against the accused-petitioners, only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 14. In my considered view, prima facie the complaint petition appears to have been filed maliciously and with ulterior motive for wrecking the vengeance on the accused persons with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has laid down the law and had formulated certain categories of cases by way of illustration, wherein, even the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent the abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The categories of cases illustrated by the Apex Court include the cases where the allegations in the F.I.R or the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable as also where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In my considered view, the present case comes within these categories also and for this reason also, I do not intend to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 15. In my considered view, the present case comes within these categories also and for this reason also, I do not intend to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 15. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.