Judgment : 1. The applicant herein is seeking the transfer of RCC No.313/2012 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thane to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji and further prays that the same be tried along with Misc. Application No.128 of 2012. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant got married to respondent No.1 on 30.11.2010. A discordant note had struck between the couple through a family friend Shri Bharat Vasant Shinde. Respondent No.1 could not believe that the applicant had suffered losses in business. Due to frequent quarrels, respondent No.1 left the house of the applicant and started residing separately. Respondent No.1 herein is working as a lady Police Constable. She had joined the services in the year 2005. On 15.3.2012, respondent No.1 lodged a report at Thane Nagar Police Station alleging therein that she was harassed and ill-treated by her husband soon after her marriage. Her husband had not taken her to her native village, but had taken her to the house of his friend Bharat Shinde. She was informed by her husband that he does not have any blood relations and therefore, she agreed to stay in the house of Bharat Shinde. After some days of marriage, she learnt that her husband, has mother, grandmother, sister, brother and sister-in-law and that they are residing at Sangli and further that her husband used to intermittently visit them. She accepted all his relatives. After some days, her husband started demanding money for a business purpose. She used to bear all the domestic expenses. She was abused by her husband and other members of her matrimonial family and they used to demand money from her. She subsequently learnt that her husband was previously married to Sangita Kurhade and that Sangita is the daughter of his step sister. Upon enquiry, he had informed her that he has not married to her but there is some dispute in the Court. And that is pertaining to the family property. The complainant has further alleged that she was posted at Thane. Her husband used to reside with her at Thane. He used to visit Sangli quite often on the ground that some civil dispute was going on in the Court at Sangli. On several occasions, he used to demand Rs.4,000/-to Rs.5,000/- from her in April 2011. She was pregnant of about four months. Her husband used to reside with her at Thane. He used to visit Sangli quite often on the ground that some civil dispute was going on in the Court at Sangli. On several occasions, he used to demand Rs.4,000/-to Rs.5,000/- from her in April 2011. She was pregnant of about four months. At that time, her husband i.e. the present applicant informed her that he wanted to purchase a house in the native place. The complainant was happy about it and had paid Rs.1,50,000/-. She had also parted with 7 tolas of gold in favour of her husband. The gold was worth Rs.3,25,000/-. Thereafter, her husband told that they should not have a child at that stage and therefore insisted upon her for medical termination of pregnancy. She was taken to Dr. Shankeshwar. The doctor refused to abort the pregnancy as she was in an advanced stage. Since the complainant had refused for abortion, her husband was avoiding to reside with her. Thereafter, she gave birth to her child. She wanted to co-habit with her husband, however there was demand of money. She had learnt that Sangita Kurhade had filed a complaint under Section 498A of IPC against her husband. Sangita Kurhade had also filed a complaint under Section 494 of IPC which was pending against the applicant at Ghadinglaj as the complainant felt cheated. On the basis of her report, Crime No.43 of 2012 is registered at Thane Nagar Police Station against the applicant and his relatives and 12 others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 495, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The applicant had filed Hindu Marriage Petition under Section 9 at Sangli seeking restitution of conjugal rights which was registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No.134 of 2013. 4. Prior to that respondent No.1 herein had approached the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkaranji and filed an application under Section Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the applicant and Bharat Shinde. The application was filed on 2.5.2012 and it is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli. It is a matter of record that the investigation in Crime No.43/2012 was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 27.10.2012 and the same is registered as RCC No.313/2012 and is pending before the chief Judicial Magistrate at Thane. 5. The application was filed on 2.5.2012 and it is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli. It is a matter of record that the investigation in Crime No.43/2012 was completed and charge-sheet was filed on 27.10.2012 and the same is registered as RCC No.313/2012 and is pending before the chief Judicial Magistrate at Thane. 5. The respondent no.1 had then approached the Civil Judge, Senior Division and filed a Hindu Marriage Petition. Notice was issued to the applicant calling upon him to cause appearance on 24.6.2013. 6. The applicant herein submits that in fact the Hindu Marriage Petition as well as the petition under Domestic Violence Act filed by the present respondent No.1 are pending at the Court of Ichalkaranui and therefore RCC No.331/2012 pending before the Magistrate at Thane should be transferred to Ichalkaranji. 7. According to the counsel for the applicant, most of the witnesses in RCC No.313 of 2012 are from Sangli and therefore, it would be convenient for the witnesses to attend the Court. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in fact the offence punishable under Section 498A has taken place at Sangli and therefore, the court at Thane does not have jurisdiction to try the said offence. 8. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit in reply and has contended that she is presently posted at Kalwa Police Station, Thane. She has a minor daughter who is hardly 17 months old. It is further contended that in fact the applicant had started residing at Thane along with her and she has parted with money and gold at Thane. Therefore, according to her, the offence is continuing offence and that the offence of cheating and breach of trust has occurred at Thane and not at Sangli. The respondent no.1 further contends that although the witnesses are from Sangli, it would be her responsibility to prove her case and therefore, she would undertake to keep the witnesses present or prosecute the matter in the manner she is advised. 9. In the present case, there is specific averment in the complaint that the husband of the complainant i.e. the present applicant was residing at Thane. He has taken money from the complainant under false pretext. He had induced her to part with the money when he was residing at Thane and, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC has been committed at Thane. He has taken money from the complainant under false pretext. He had induced her to part with the money when he was residing at Thane and, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC has been committed at Thane. 10. Section 178 of Cr.P.C. reads thus :- "178. Place of inquiry or trial (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local area an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 11. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that although the offence punishable under Section 498A is alleged to have been committed partly in one local area and partly in another, then the Court at Thane would have jurisdiction to try the said case. Section 182(1) of Cr.P.C. contemplates that any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived. In the present case, the accused-applicant allegedly received the money and golden ornaments of the complainant at Thane and hence the Court at Thane would have jurisdiction to try the said offence. 12. In view of the aforementioned provisions of law and the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for and hence the application seeking transfer of RCC No.313/2012 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thane to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji is rejected. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs. Application dismissed.