JUDGMENT : Since both these applications arise of the same case, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsels for the State as also learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against them in Gomia P.S. Case No. 107 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 889 of 2006, which was instituted for the offence under Sections 498-A / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners have also prayed for quashing the orders dated 9.4.2007 and 26.7.2007 taking cognizance in the respective cases, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 4. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint case, filed by the complainant O.P. No. 2 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. The complainant is the wife of petitioner Manoj Yadav and the other petitioners are the in-laws of the complainant. It is stated in the complaint petition that the marriage between the parties was held on 28th of May, 2004 and thereafter she was brought to her matrimonial home, which is situated in Ranchi. There is allegation against the petitioners in the complaint petition to have subjected the complainant to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry at her matrimonial home and ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial house. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, which was registered as complaint Case No. 342 of 2006, and was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, Gomia P.S. Case No. 107 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 889 of 2006 was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police has submitted chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, by orders dated 9.4.2007 and 26.7.2007 in the respective cases. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which, the cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, by orders dated 9.4.2007 and 26.7.2007 in the respective cases. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that from perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that no part of occurrence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Bemo at Tenughat, rather all the allegations against the petitioners relate to Ranchi and accordingly, the Court of Bermo at Tenughat, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the Court of Bermo at Tenguhat, is absolutely vitiated and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have opposed the prayer, submitting that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition against the petitioners, the offence is clearly made out against them and it is not a case for any interference in the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage. 7. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the entire allegation in the complaint petition relate to matrimonial home of the complainant, which is admittedly situated at Ranchi. The complaint petition shows that no part of the occurrence had taken place at the parents’ place of the complainant, situated within the Gomio Police Station in the district of Bokaro. There is nothing in the complaint petition to show that even the petitioners ever visited the parents’ home of the complainant, situated within the Gomio Police Station in the District of Bokaro. 8. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no part of occurrence had taken place in the District of Bokaro within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Bermo at Tenughat, and accordingly, the Court of Bermo at Tenughat had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. As such, the impugned orders, taking cognizance against the petitioners, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners, in both the aforesaid cases, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. As such, the impugned orders, taking cognizance against the petitioners, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners, in both the aforesaid cases, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 9.4.2007 and 26.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Gomia P.S. Case No. 107 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 889 of 2006, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in the said case, are hereby, quashed. 10. It is made clear that the complainant O.P. No. 2 may bring her cause of action before the Court of competent jurisdiction. She may also take back the complaint petition from the Court below, for being presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 11. Both these applications are accordingly, allowed, with the observations and directions as above.