Order : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 912 of 2005, whereby prima facie offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were found against them. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the complainant. 3. The complaint case was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in which, it is stated that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of petitioner Anoop Kumar Bose and the marriage had taken place at Dhabad. Thereafter, she was taken to her in-laws place at Allahabad, but from the very first day, she was being subjected to cruelty, in the manner that the marriage between the parties was not consummated by the husband for demand of dowry. There are other allegations of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and torture also, but all the occurrence had taken place at Allahabad. It is stated in the complaint petition that ultimately on 20.12.2002 after brutal assaults, she was driven out of matrimonial home keeping back her Stridhan. It is further stated in paragraph-18 of the complaint petition that lastly on 5.6.2005, some of the accused persons came to parents' house of the complainant, where they again demanded dowry and stated that if the demand of dowry was not met, the complainant would not be allowed to live in conjugal life. With these allegations, the complaint case was filed, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 912 of 2005. 4. The record shows that in course of enquiry, statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the statements of three witnesses were recorded at the enquiry stage, on the basis of which, prima faice offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were found against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and whatever allegations are there in the complaint petition, they all relate to Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and no part of occurrence had taken place in the State of Jharkhand. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and whatever allegations are there in the complaint petition, they all relate to Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and no part of occurrence had taken place in the State of Jharkhand. It is also submitted that though in the complaint petition, it is alleged that part of the occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad on 5.6.2005, but in her statement recorded on solemn affirmation, the complainant has not stated that this part of the occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad. The witness Mithu Chakladar, who is the sister of the complainant, has stated in her statement that lastly in the month of June 2005, her sister was assaulted and driven away. The other witness Atnu Chakladar, has also stated that the last occurrence had taken place on 5.6.2005 at the in-laws' place of the complainant, where she was assaulted and driven out from house. Learned counsel has submitted that though in the complaint petition, it is stated that this part of the occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad, but both the witnesses clearly stated that the occurrence had taken place on 5.6.2005 at her in-laws' place. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that since no part of occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad, the Court of Dhanad lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such, the impugned order dated 21.2.2006 finding prima facie offences against the petitioners are absolutely bad in law and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2, have opposed the prayer, submitting that in the compliant petition, it is clearly stated that the part of the occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad on 5.6.2005 and accordingly, the Court below had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and there is no illegality in the impugned order finding prima facie offence against the petitioners and there cannot be any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the complaint petition, all the allegations are alleged to have taken place at Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and no part of occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the complaint petition, all the allegations are alleged to have taken place at Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and no part of occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad. It is stated in the complaint petition that lastly on 5.6.2005, some of the accused persons came at Dhanbad and part of the occurrence had also taken place at Dhanbad, but in her statement, recorded on solemn affirmation, the complainant has not clearly stated that last occurrence had taken place at Dhanbad. Two enquiry witnesses examined on behalf or the complainant have clearly stated that even the last occurrence of 5.6.2005 had taken place at the in-laws' place of the complainant, where she was assaulted and she was driven away. Accordingly, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the statement in paragraph-18 of the complaint petition has been made falsely only to create the jurisdiction in the Court below, which gets falsified from the statements of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses recorded in the enquiry stage. 8. For the aforesaid reason, I am of the considered view that the Court below had completely lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entrain the complaint case and accordingly, the impugned order finding prima facie offence against the petitioners and even the continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners at Dhanbad, are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 21.2.2006 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 912 of 2005, whereby prima facie offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were found, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the said complaint case, are hereby, quashed. 10. The complainant, however, is given liberty to bring her cause of action in the Court of competent jurisdiction. She may also take back her complaint from the Court below for being presented before the competent Court of law. 11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly, allowed, with the observations as above.