JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This petition is filed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi in Crl.R.P.No.4/2016 dated 16.04.2016 in confirming the order passed by the JMFC-II Court, Hubballi dated 29.12.2015 in Crime No.84/2013 in directing the respondent No.1 to investigate the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner No.1 before this Court is the husband and the respondent No.2 is the wife and their marriage was solemnized on 16.06.2013 at Ludhiana, Punjab. The respondent No.2/complainant has lodged the complaint with Dugri Police, Ludhiana, Punjab on 29.11.2013 alleging that two unidentified people came and tried to strangulate her with duppatta and when her cousin came to her house, the said persons fleed from the place and her life was saved and she was subjected to medical examination and found certain injuries sustained on account of the said incident. The respondent No.2 also gave another complaint to Hubballi Woman Police and they registered the same in Crime No.84/2013 for the offences under Sections 506, 498-A, 420 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in the said complaint an allegation is made that she has received threatening phone calls from the accused persons from 17.07.2013 to 29.11.2013. The petitioner No.1 has filed Crl.Pet.No.100284/2014 praying this Court to quash the same and the same came to be dismissed. 3. The Investigating Officer sought permission of the JMFC Court to transfer the case to Ludhiana police on 19.05.2015 and the Court below vide its order dated 01.06.2015, passed an order to transfer the case to the jurisdictional police, Ludhiana, Punjab and in the meanwhile again passed an order on 09.06.2015 not to transmit the records till receiving of further orders since the said order has been challenged before the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubballi and the District and Sessions Judge set aside the order of the JMFC Court dated 01.06.2015 and directed the Court to hear the complainant-petitioner and the Investigating Officer and pass afresh order. The Court below after hearing passed an order on 29.12.2015 in coming to the conclusion that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused is a continuous one and hence, Mahila Police, Hubballi have jurisdiction to investigate the matter. The Court below after hearing passed an order on 29.12.2015 in coming to the conclusion that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused is a continuous one and hence, Mahila Police, Hubballi have jurisdiction to investigate the matter. The same has been challenged before the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubballi by filing a revision petition and raised the objection with regard to the jurisdiction. The District and Sessions Court while passing the order made an observation that the complaint lodged by the complainant making an allegation that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment at Ludhiana and the same was not taken place at Ludhiana, but such other acts which are independent in itself, but connected to the incidents taken place at Hubballi. Therefore, the completion of the offence as alleged in the complaint in respect of the threat is at Hubballi only and therefore the Court held that jurisdiction is found to have been vested in the Courts of Hubballi and hence, the present petition before this Court. 4. The main ground urged in this petition is that both the Courts bellow have committed an error in permitting the concerned jurisdictional police to investigate the case. As per the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 at Dugiri Police, Ludhiana, an allegation was made that an attempt was made to take away her life and complaint is still pending for investigation since the respondent No.2 did not cooperate with the investigation. The other contention that the very complaint filed before the jurisdictional police, Hubballi is only to make believe the story of receiving the phone call from petitioner No.1 and other unknown persons and the offence invoked against these petitioners does not attract the said penal provisions since there are no any ingredients of the said offence and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court threatening phone call made by the accused does not shift the jurisdiction to attract the jurisdiction as claimed. 5. The other ground urged in the petition is both the Courts below have failed to take note of the contents of the complaint and ingredients of the offence and the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2014) 12 SCC 362 had clearly spelled out that subsequently threatening calls would not change the jurisdiction of the offence. 5. The other ground urged in the petition is both the Courts below have failed to take note of the contents of the complaint and ingredients of the offence and the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2014) 12 SCC 362 had clearly spelled out that subsequently threatening calls would not change the jurisdiction of the offence. This Court also in the earlier order in Crl.Pet.No.100284/2014 clearly held that the case falls within the jurisdiction of Ludhiana and taking into note of the same, the Court below earlier passed an order to transfer the case to Ludhiana and the Magistrate cannot review his own order contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The District and Sessions Judge has also committed an error in confirming the order of the Court below and the Hubballi police have no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case and hence, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 6. The counsel appearing for the petitioners in his argument he vehemently contends that the Hubballi Police even though without having jurisdiction, have registered the false case and both the Courts below have erroneously passed an order permitting the Hubballi Police to investigate the matter and the allegation made in the complaint contains with regard to the alleged incident were taken place at Ludhiana. 7. The counsel in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Amarendu Jyoti and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2014) 12 SCC 362 and relying upon this judgment the counsel brought to my notice para No.9 to 11 of the judgment and contends that no incidents were taken place at Hubballi and all the alleged offences taken place at Ludhiana and hence, this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand and contends that the Apex Court in this judgment categorically held that the offence of cruelty was not continuing one and hence, the contention of the respondent No.2 that the offence is continuing one cannot be accepted and prayed this Court to set aside the orders of the Courts below. 8. 8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that this is a second round of litigation and the Courts below while passing the order have categorically held that the offence has been taken place at Hubballi since the telephonic calls are received at Hubballi and Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C. clearly states with regard to conferring the jurisdiction to the Hubballi Police to enquire into the matter and investigate and file the charge sheet and the Courts below have given reasons while passing the orders and hence, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to set aside the orders of the Courts below. 9. Having head the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and the counsel for respondent No.2, this Court has to examine whether the orders impugned require interference of this Court to set aside the same on the ground that the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 10. Before appreciating the facts of the case, this Court would like to refer the contents of the complaint. On perusal of the complaint, it is stated that the marriage of the complainant with petitioner No.1 was took place on 16.06.2013 at Ludhiana, Punjab and as per their demand her father gave golden ornaments and other articles and spent more than Rs.90 lakhs for marriage and also gave an amount of Rs.25 lakhs subsequent to the marriage and also referred the complaint which has been given earlier and alleged that an attempt was made to take away her life and further a specific allegation is made in the complaint that even after she came to Hubballi she took treatment for her depression and she is receiving threatening calls from petitioner No.1 and other unknown persons and she is under constant threat. The other allegation that they are demanding dowry and threatening her to come back to her matrimonial home or otherwise they are going to kill her and further allegation is made that her father is also receiving such calls and contended that she is facing constant and severe threat of life and also demand of dowry and she is unable to sleep and cannot do anything and hence, request was made to the concerned police to take action. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.84/2013 is registered for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 307, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. Admittedly, the very registration of the case is challenged before this Court in Crl.Pet.No.100284/2014 and the same was rejected and thereafter a requisition was given by the police to transfer the case and accordingly the Magistrate at the first instance considered the request and the same has been challenged before the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hubballi and the said order has been set aside and again directed the Magistrate to consider the matter afresh and accordingly an order is passed on 29.12.2015 in coming to the conclusion that the Mahila Police, Hubballi are having jurisdiction to investigate the matter. On perusal of the order of the Magistrate dated 29.12.2015, referring the contents of the complaint and also referring Section 178 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate passed an order that the offence is committed in one local area and partly in another and the act committed by the accused is continuous one and the same is alleged in the complaint. Hence, the Mahila Police, Hubballi are having jurisdiction to investigate the matter. Being aggrieved by the said order, Crl.R.P.No.4/2016 is filed by these petitioners and the Revisional Court in its order a reference was made that the alleged offences are not only taken place at Ludhiana, but such other acts connected to the incidents taken place at Hubballi and completion of the offence as alleged in the complaint in respect of the threat is also at Hubballi and therefore the police have jurisdiction to investigate the matter and confirmed the order of the Court below and dismissed the revision petition. 12. Before considering the aspect of jurisdiction is concerned since the petitioner has mainly contended in the petition that the Hubballi Police are not having any jurisdiction to investigate the matter, this Court would like to refer the proviso of Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted below: "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. 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." 13. Before appreciating the factual aspects of the case on hand, this Court also would like to refer the judgment of the Apex Court which has been quoted by the petitioners' counsel reported in (2014) 12 SCC 362 . the Apex Court in this judgment referred Sections 178(c) and 179 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence and also discussed whether the offence continuing one in terms of Section 178(c) of Cr.P.C.; alleged offence of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC committed against wife during her stay in her matrimonial home at Delhi; thereafter wife returned to her paternal home at Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) where her father lodged FIR against her husband and others alleging that they subjected her to cruelty for dowry demand. The Apex Court also observed that FIR showing that all alleged overt acts of cruelty took place at Delhi which forced the wife to return to reside with her father; no evidence showing that her husband or any other members of his family tried to contact her even on phone at Ambikapur; held that Court at Ambikapur had no jurisdiction as proper court would be Court at Delhi to try alleged offence. 14. In keeping the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to analyse the material on record. 15. 14. In keeping the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to analyse the material on record. 15. Having considered the contentions of the petitioners' counsel and as well as the counsel for respondent No.2, this Court has to take note of the contents of the complaint and no doubt the complaint discloses the date of marriage and thereafter joining the matrimonial home and subjecting her for cruelty and harassment at Ludhiana and admittedly a complaint is also filed before the Ludhiana police on 29.11.2013 and the same is pending and allegation that an attempt was made to take away her life at Ludhiana. The main contention insofar as to the registration of the case by Hubballi Woman Police and a specific allegation is made in the complaint that even after her return to Hubballi she is receiving threatening calls from Manveer i.e. the petitioner No.1 and other unknown persons and she is under constant threat and the allegation is not only made against them that they are only causing threat to the complainant, but also an allegation is made that demanding dowry and threatening her to come back to matrimonial home otherwise they are going to kill her. Further, an allegation is made that even her father is also receiving such calls and causing severe threat and she is facing constant threat to her life and they are also demanding dowry. 16. For having taken note of the contents of the complaint, it is clear that even though she is residing at Hubballi she is repeatedly receiving phone calls from the petitioners and hence, case has been registered and Hubballi Police are investigating the matter. 16. For having taken note of the contents of the complaint, it is clear that even though she is residing at Hubballi she is repeatedly receiving phone calls from the petitioners and hence, case has been registered and Hubballi Police are investigating the matter. It is important to note that Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C. deals with regard to the ordinary place of inquiry and trial and Section 178 of Cr.P.C. is clear that where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another and the other proviso 178(d) of Cr.P.C. that 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 and if Sections 178(b) and 178(d) read conjointly, it is clear that it may be inquired into or tried by a Court of having jurisdiction over any of such local areas and if an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another area, the concerned jurisdictional police and the concerned jurisdictional Court can inquire into the matter and conduct the trial. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that I have already pointed out that an allegation of causing life threat and also demanding of dowry over the telephone call to the complainant as well as her father is attributed and it is also the case of the complainant that she is receiving phone calls repeatedly from petitioner No.1 and also by unknown persons in connection with her matrimonial affairs and when such being the case, the contention of the petitioners' counsel that the Hubballi Police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter cannot be accepted. No doubt, the Apex Court discussed in the judgment referred supra with regard to the jurisdiction is concerned. However, it is specifically noted that no evidence showing that her husband or any other members of his family tried to contact her even on phone at Ambikapur and in the case on hand the factual aspects is different from the factual aspects of the case referred in the said judgment. However, it is specifically noted that no evidence showing that her husband or any other members of his family tried to contact her even on phone at Ambikapur and in the case on hand the factual aspects is different from the factual aspects of the case referred in the said judgment. In the case on hand, it is specific allegation against the petitioners that they are making repeated telephonic calls and causing life threat and also demanding dowry over the phone and it is also specific case of the complainant that she is receiving the telephonic calls repeatedly at Hubballi and when such being the allegation made in the complaint, the judgment quoted by the petitioners' counsel is not applicable to the case on hand since there are specific allegations that she is receiving repeated phone calls and her father is also receiving such phone calls and in this regard the Hubballi Police have got the jurisdiction to investigate the matter and to file the report. 17. However, it is made clear that in the complaint there is no any allegation with regard to the attempt made to take away the life of the complainant within the jurisdiction of the Court below and an offence is also invoked under Section 307 of IPC while registering the FIR and the Investigating Officer while investigating the matter shall take note of this aspect and file the report. 18. For having discussed above, I do not find any error committed by the Courts below i.e. the lower Court as well as the Revisional Court and both the Courts below have taken note of the factual aspects of the case and rightly come to the conclusion that the Hubballi Police are having jurisdiction to investigate the matter and hence, I do not find any merit in the petition. 19. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. The Investigating Officer while submitting the final report shall take note of the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC as discussed supra. In view of the disposal of the main petition itself, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and hence, they are also disposed of.