IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7977 of 2008 1. RAVINDRA PANDIT S/O LATE MOHAN PANDIT 2. MEERA DEVI @ DEOKI DEVI W/O LATE MOHAN PANDIT 3. NEELAM PANDIT W/O RAVINDRA PANDIT 4. BINDESHWARI PANDIT S/O LATE MADHO PANDIT 5. PRAJAWATI DEVI W/O BINDESHWARI PANDIT 6. RAMJEE PANDIT SON OF BINDESHWARI PANDIT 7. RAJEEV KUMAR PANDIT SON OF BINDESHWARI PANDIT 8. PRITAM KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BINDESHWARI PANDIT. ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. DULARI DEVI W/O RAVINDRA PANDIT ---- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 05 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, complainant/opposite party no.2 and the State. Petitioners are accuseds of complaint case lodged under diverse Sections of Penal Code including Sections 498A and 494 of the Penal Code. They are aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in complaint case no. 2444 of 2005 whereby their application filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure( hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) has been considered and rejected. Learned court below found that there are sufficient evidence on record indicating complicity of the petitioners in the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners assail the order on the ground that the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in view of the allegation contained in the complaint, shall not have the territorial jurisdiction. He relies on Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) which reads as under:- “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.” 2 Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant, on the other hand, submits that there is allegation(s) in the complaint which would show that the offence was continuing one and part of which had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Katihar. He draws attention of the Court to the allegations contained in paragraph no.9 of the complaint. Learned counsel submits that in view of the provisions contained in 182(2) of the Code, the Court at Katihar shall have the territorial jurisdiction. Section 182 (2) of the Code reads as under:- “182(2) Any offence punishable under section 495 or section 494 of the Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage [, or the wife by first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of offence].” I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. A perusal of the complaint in between the lines would reveal that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Katihar Court. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which have been to be proved before the Court can come to the conclusion that petitioners were guilty of the charge(s) made therein/ thereunder. The marriage admittedly had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Katihar. Section 177 of the Code only lays down a general proposition that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178(d) of the Code, however, deals with a case where several acts of commission of offence have been alleged which lay between the different local areas. It does give jurisdiction to a Court where any of such acts/ omissions has been 3 committed. In that view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misplaced. Consequently I am convinced that jurisdiction of the Court cannot be challenged on that ground. Application lacks merit. Dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)