JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.10.2019, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, including the entire criminal proceedings, arising out of a Complaint Case No.3467 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-cum-A.M.-V, Ranchi. 3. The complaint was filed by the complainant Anita Kumari Goswami, stating therein that the complainant and the petitioner came to know each other through Facebook in the year 2015. Then petitioner came to complainant’s house at Ranchi with his father and brother then complainant also went to work place and proposed to the complainant for marriage. Even parents and other family members came to see her and gave their consent for marriage and Rs.5,00,000/- was fixed for marriage and they also took Rs.1,50,000/- during the petitioner was working at Agartalla, Tripura and further alleged that the petitioner proposed the complainant to go there, when the complainant denied to go alone, the petitioner then he arranged Air Ticket for her along with her mother, petitioner took them to Mata Bari Temple. When the complainant entered inside the temple along with petitioner, then he put vermillion on her head and thread as Mangal Sutra and put mental pressure on her to stay as husband and wife. Mother of the complainant showed her objection and scolded the petitioner. Even the complainant opposed this, but later on they stayed as husband and wife further alleged that the petitioner assured to complainant for marry and for the same write in a piece of paper and put signature on it. Later on petitioner got government job at Cement Corporation of India, Himachal Pradesh and petitioner and his family members evaded from marriage. Since the complainant was under bona fide belief that she is legally wedded wife of the accused, she reposed full faith on the petitioner and trusted the words of the petitioner regarding marriage. Hence lodgment of the present complaint. 4. Mr. Since the complainant was under bona fide belief that she is legally wedded wife of the accused, she reposed full faith on the petitioner and trusted the words of the petitioner regarding marriage. Hence lodgment of the present complaint. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took the Court to the entire complaint petition and submits that all the cause of action have taken place at Agartalla in the State of Tripura. He submits that in view of Section 177 of the Cr.P.C., once the case under the criminal sections have arisen in a particular territory, i.e. required to be lodged in that territory and only that District is having the jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation and trial. 5. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Versus Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in 2005 (1) JCR 15 (SC), where in Para-10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “10. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. In terms f Section 177 of the Code it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that ingredients of Section 493 ad 496 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out, as in the complaint it has been disclosed that the complainant was a major lady and she herself went to the place of the petitioner. He submits that the lady is major and she is not lawfully married with the petitioner and in view of that Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. By way of referring to Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code, he further submits that if Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted, Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code is also not attracted. He further submits that for the same cause of action, another FIR has been lodged by the O.P. No. 2, which was numbered as Balidih P.S. Case No. 192 of 2019 and on this ground, this petition is fit to be allowed by this Court by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra, Mr. He further submits that for the same cause of action, another FIR has been lodged by the O.P. No. 2, which was numbered as Balidih P.S. Case No. 192 of 2019 and on this ground, this petition is fit to be allowed by this Court by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra, Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the cause of action has arisen in Ranchi, which is disclosed in the complaint petition itself. He submits that in view of the fact that the part of cause of action is also at Ranchi, the complaint has rightly been lodged at Ranchi. By way of referring to the cognizance order dated 03.10.2019, he submits that in the cognizance order the learned Magistrate has taken care of all the materials and after examining the solemn affirmation of the O.P. No. 2 and two witnesses Anup Kumar Goswami and Durgawati Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter cognizance under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the concerned court. He further submits that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner in connection with this case has been rejected by this court and the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein also the petitioner withdrew the S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3223 of 2020. On these grounds, he submits that there is no merit in this petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. 8. In the light of rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials available on record. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the part of cause of action has arisen at Ranchi also. The air ticket was arranged by the petitioner, which was sent to the place of residence of O.P. No. 2 and on the said air ticket, the O.P. No. 2 along with her mother went to Agartalla (Tripura). There are allegations in the complaint with respect to whatsapp chat. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that that the part of the cause of action is not at Ranchi. 9. There are allegations in the complaint with respect to whatsapp chat. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that that the part of the cause of action is not at Ranchi. 9. Recently the complaint was filed by the lady at the place of residing with her parents was the subject matter before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the complaint / FIR can be entertained at the place of residing of the lady, after leaving the matrimonial home. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras-15 and 16 held as follows:- “15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised. 16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.” 10. In the case in hand, admittedly the O.P. No. 2 was residing with her parents and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. (Supra) was on the issue whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or not, but in the present case, admittedly the part of cause of action has arisen at Ranchi. 11. It is well settled that once an offence is made out under any provision of the Indian Penal Code, it is required to be taken in the light of Section 177 Cr.P.C. In the case in hand, part of cause of action has arisen at Ranchi and in view of the Full Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi (Supra), the argument of Mr. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is negated by this court. So far as second limb of argument is concerned, against the same cause of action, another FIR, being Baridih P.S. Case No. 192 of 2019 has been lodged by the O.P. No. 2, however, it transpires that in the said FIR, there are allegations of concealment about the previous marriage of petitioner with another lady and the O.P. No. 2 was dashed by the car of the petitioner on the instruction of this petitioner by the driver. As such the fact of that case is different from present one. 12. As such the fact of that case is different from present one. 12. Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code speaks that every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished. In the case in hand, there are allegations against this petitioner that he has forcefully taken the O.P. No. 2 at temple, where he has put the vermillion (sindoor) on the head of the lady and disclosed her that now she is legally married wife of the petitioner, but thereafter the O.P. No. 2 was cheated, as such Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in the case in hand. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted, as such Section 496 of the Indian Penal Code is also attracted. 13. In view of the above facts and the reasoned analysis, the Court has come to the conclusion that this is not a fit case to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.