IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7569 of 2009 1. Arun Kumar Prasad @ Arun Prasad, son of Shiv Nath Prasad, 2. Rita Prasad @ Rita Devi, wife of Arun Kumar Prasad, 3. Badal Prasad @ Jimmi, 4. Aditya Prasad @ Bittu, both sons of Arun Kumar Prasad, all residents of Holding No. 286, Deluxe Hotel Lane, Mahul Pilli, PS and district Raurkela, Orissa. 5. Vishal Anand, son of Vijay Anand, 6. Varsha Anand @ Varsha Devi, wife of Vishal Anand, 7. both of Sonapatti, Swarnika Jewelers, Bhagalpur, PS Kotwali Dist. Bhagalpur – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Laxmi Devi @ Komal, wife of Badal Pd. @ Jimmi, daughter of Satyendra Poddar, resident of Holding No. 286, Deluxe Hotel Lane, Mahul Pilli, PS and district Raurkela, Orissa, present C/O Satyendra Podda, village Maheshkhunt Bazar, PS Maheshkhunt, Dist. Khagaria – opp. parties. 2 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed against the order, dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Complaint Case No. 719C/2008 on the ground that the court at Khagaria did not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case as the cause of action arose at Raurkela. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not raised any question with respect to the merit of the case and in fact this court will not be inclined to interfere with respect to the merits of the allegations made out in the complaint petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that as far as offence under section 498A of the Penal Code is concerned, it is a continuing offence and once the husband and the in-laws have forced or thrown out the wife from her matrimonial home, it amounts to a continuing offence and as such the court at Khagaria would have the jurisdiction to hear this case. 2 Be that as it may, the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria is directed to return the complaint to opposite party no.2 so that it may be filed before an appropriate court. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 further submits that it would be virtually impossible for opp. party no.2 to travel to Raurkela on each and every date and pursue the case and it will actually amount to allowing the petitioners to get away with the offence for which they are guilty. It goes without saying that opposite party no.2 could move the Supreme court for any appropriate relief with respect to transfer of the criminal case to an appropriate place. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)