JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 07.12.2015 by which cognizance of the offence under section 498A/420/34 IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken on a protest-cum-complaint petition filed by O.P. No. 2. 2. By an order dated 21.11.2016, further proceeding in C.P. Case No. 1355 of 2015 has been stayed by this Court. 3. Stand taken by the petitioners is that no part of the cause of action, precisely to say the alleged occurrence, has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Dhanbad and, therefore, the order taking cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is without jurisdiction. 4. Briefly stated, on a written complaint by O.P. No. 2-Reshma Shahnawaz a First Information Report being Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2013 was registered for the offence under section 498A/420/34 IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police submitted final form observing that there was no evidence to proceed further in the matter. In the protest-cum-complaint petition filed by O.P. No. 2 which has been registered as C.P. Case No. 1355 of 2015, she was examined on solemn affirmation and three inquiry witnesses were examined by her. The learned trial judge recording that, “on going through the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on S.A. and statement of inquiry witnesses, I find prima-facie case under section 498A read with 34 IPC and section 3/4 of the D.P. Act is made out”, has issued summons to the accused persons. Before the protest-cum-complaint petition was filed by O.P. No. 2, against the order dated 26.05.2014 by which the final form in Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2013 was accepted by the Magistrate, she preferred Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2014 which was allowed vide order dated 14.05.2015 with a direction to the Magistrate to hear the complainant. 5. A perusal of the protest-cum-complaint petition would disclose that O.P. No. 2 has made allegations that her husband and mother-in-law have assaulted her and the accused persons did not provide food and water to her, rather they asked her to bring money from her parents otherwise she would not be allowed to live peacefully. In the complaint petition she has not made allegations against other two persons who have been arraigned as accused by her. In the complaint petition she has not made allegations against other two persons who have been arraigned as accused by her. She has made specific allegation that torture and harassment upon her took place in her matrimonial home, that is, at Sahebganj. However, in the format of the complaint petition she has written that the occurrence took place on 21.11.2011 and 21.05.2013 and is still continuing. 6. Taking a leaf from this, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 referring to the decision in “Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) Vrs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee” reported in (1997) 5 SCC 30 submits that the offence under section 498A being a continuing offence, the court within whose local jurisdiction the complainant is residing would have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 7. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears under Chapter-XIII which deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal case in inquiries and trials. It speaks of the ordinary place of enquiry and trial. It provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local limits it was committed. The expression “ordinarily” occurring under section 177 Cr. P.C. indicates that there can be more than one local area within the jurisdiction of more than one court where inquiry or trial may continue. This position in law is clarified by section 178 Cr.P.C. In this context it is also important to read section 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. Section 155 Cr.P.C. provides that an Officer-in-Charge of the police station on an information of the commission, within the limits of such station, of a non-cognizable offence shall inquire into the matter, however, under sub-section 2 of section 156 Cr.P.C. it has been provided that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. 8. A conjoint reading of these provisions makes the position in law abundantly clear; a distinction has to be drawn between a case which has proceeded on a First Information Report and a proceeding initiated on a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Jurisdiction of the court, within whose local limits the offence even if has not been committed, cannot be challenged during the investigation; it would be a pre-mature challenge. The reason is that after investigation the investigating officer may transfer the case to the police station within whose local limits the offence has been committed. However, there is a limitation on powers of the court seized with a complaint case. Unless it is specifically pleaded that the offence or a part of the offence has been committed within the local limits of the court, the Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance of the offence [refer, “Y. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police” reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 ]. A mere statement in the complaint petition, and that too in the format of the complaint but not in the body, that the offence is still continuing is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence which has not taken place within his local limits. 9. A bare reading of the protest-cum-complaint petition and statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation do not disclose that any part of the alleged occurrence has taken place after the complainant came to reside at her parents’ place within the district of Dhanbad. The learned Magistrate, has committed a serious error in law in mis-reading the evidence brought before him in the proceeding of C.P. Case No. 1355 of 2015. He has read something which, in fact, is not on records and therefore the order taking cognizance dated 07.12.2015 has been rendered unsustainable. In so far as the plea raised by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 on the basis of the decision in “Sujata Mukherjee (Smt)” case is concerned, it needs to recorded that in view of the evidence led by the complainant - there is not even a sentence - it cannot be presumed that the offence as alleged by the complainant is still continuing while she is residing at her parents place at Dhanbad. 10. In the result, the impugned order dated 07.12.2015 is quashed. 11. Cr. M. P. No. 5 of 2016 is allowed.