JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 276 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner for discharge had been rejected. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire occurrence of demand and torture had taken place in Daltonganj and there being no cause of action in Ranchi, the Court at Ranchi has no jurisdiction to try the case. He further submits that the complainant herself in her evidence before charge has categorically submitted that all the incident had taken place in her matrimonial house. He further submits that merely because the complainant had started residing in her parental house, it cannot be said to be a continuing offence so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Ranchi for trying the case. 4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer. 5. It appears from the complaint petition that a major part of the incident had taken place at Daltonganj whereas on 18.12.2011, there was an incident which was taken place at Ranchi. In her evidence before charge at paragraph 9, the complainant had supported the said fact with respect to the incident having taken place at Ranchi. It is not in dispute that some part of the occurrence had taken place at Daltonganj whereas some incident had taken place at Ranchi and considering the provisions of section 178 of Cr.P.C., 1973 since the Ranchi Court has jurisdiction to enter into the allegations levelled by the complainant, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application. 6. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed.