JUDGMENT 1. - The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioners while claiming following reliefs:- I. In the interest of justice the record of the Criminal Complaint No.229/13 registered before A.C.J.M. Rajgarh may be called for. II. The order framing charges as well as the complete proceedings initiated against the humble petitioners may kindly be ordered to be quashed, III. The Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed with costs. IV. Any other order this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners, she has no where mentioned that the alleged act of cruelty and criminal breach of trust has been committed by the petitioners within the territorial jurisdiction of Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu and, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that earlier also the complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging the similar allegations pertaining to cruelty and criminal breach of trust however, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No.530/2008 decided on 07.08.2011 has acquitted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 489-A and 406 IPC and, therefore, the present prosecution lunched against the petitioners is barred by the principle of res judicata. 2. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Negi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013(3) RLW 2420 (Raj.) ; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 ; State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain reported in AIR 1977 SC 1680 ; Shahjad Ali & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 3400 and Venkatapathi Naidu & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Anr. reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 179. 3. v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 ; State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain reported in AIR 1977 SC 1680 ; Shahjad Ali & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 3400 and Venkatapathi Naidu & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Anr. reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 179. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have argued that in the complaint lodged at the instance of the respondent No.2 it is clearly stated that she was subjected to cruelty after 07.04.2011 and it is also mentioned in the complaint that on 28.11.2012 the petitioners have left her at Rajgarh Bus Stand while demanding dowry and has also refused to return her stridhan. It has also been contended that the earlier the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 in the year 2009 was in relation to the incidents took place up to the year 2009, whereas the present complaint is lodged by the respondent No.2 in relation to the incidents happened after 07.04.2011. It is also contended that since the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty at Rajgarh on 28.11.2012 the criminal court at Rajgarh has all the jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. From the perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu on 13.12.2012 it is reveled that she has clearly stated in the complaint that on 28.11.2012 the petitioners have left her at Bus Stand Rajgarh while demanding dowry and has also refused to return the stridhan of her at Rajgarh.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita Kumhari Kashyap v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 400 , after taking into consideration the provisions of sections 177 to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2163/2013 Harikesh Dhanak & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 179 Cr.P.C. and after taking into consideration its earlier pronouncements on the same subject has held as under:- "6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Code") deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177-179 are relevant which are as follows: "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-. 179 Cr.P.C. and after taking into consideration its earlier pronouncements on the same subject has held as under:- "6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Code") deals with jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177-179 are relevant which are as follows: "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial. (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas 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. 179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." From the above provisions, it is clear that the normal rule is that the offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more than one local area and takes place in different local areas as per Section 178, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas is competent to inquire into and try the offence. Section 179 makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 7. ......... 8. ......... 9. Mr. Section 179 makes it clear that if anything happened as a consequence of the offence, the same may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 7. ......... 8. ......... 9. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents fairly stated that there is no dispute about the jurisdiction of the Court at Gaya insofar as against the husband, however, in respect of other relatives of the husband in the absence of any act at Gaya, the said Court has no jurisdiction and if at all, the wife has to pursue her remedy only at Ranchi. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, (2004) 8 SCC 100 in particular, paragraph 12 of the said decision which reads as under: "12. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused." It is true that Section 177 of the Code refers to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. Though the expression "cause of action" is not a stranger to criminal cases, in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code and in the light of the specific averment in the complaint of the appellant herein, we are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 10. Mr. Sanyal also relied on a decision of this Court in Bhura Ram and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2008) 11 SCC 103 wherein following the decision in Y. Abraham Ajith and Others (supra), this Court held that "cause of action"; having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. For the same reasons, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, while there is no dispute as to the proposition in view of the fact that in the case on hand, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence at the continuing offence of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. In view of the above reason, both the decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case and we are unable to accept the stand taken by Mr. Sanyal. 11. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2163/2013 Harikesh Dhanak & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. illtreatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill- treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted." 5. In the light of the above principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if we examine the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 it is clear that she has alleged that the petitioners have demanded dowry and has refused to return stridhan of her at Rajgarh and, therefore, it cannot be said that the court situated at Rajgarh has no jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by the respondent No.2. 6. So far as regarding the fact of earlier complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is concerned, it is noticed that the same was in relation to the incidents took place prior to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2163/2013 Harikesh Dhanak & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. the year 2009. However, in the instant case the respondent No.2 has filed complaint against the petitioners in relation to the incident happened after 07.04.2011. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the earlier judgment passed by the trial court acquitting the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC will bar the instant complaint filed by the respondent No.2. 7. Hence, this Court does not find merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed. *******