IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.19940 of 2008 1. RADHE PRASAD S/o Jageshwar Mahto 2. Shobha Devi W/o Radhe Prasad 3. Jageshwar Mahto S/o Late Bodhi Mahto Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 resident of village Koplin, P.S. Sitamadhi, District- Nawada. 4. Biranjana Devi W/o Sunil Kumar 5. Sunil Kumar s/o Gopal Mahto Petitioner nos. 4 and 5 resident of village Makdumpur, P.S. Warsaliganj, District- Gaya. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 10/ 11.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 21.05.2005, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case no. C1 – 4 of 2005 / Tr. No. 1235 of 2005, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is without jurisdiction, as the complaint itself was not maintainable in the Court of Gaya. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, no part of offence could be said to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Gaya court. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that accused/petitioners tortured the complainant for non-fulfillment of dowry. However, learned counsel is not able to show from the complaint that any part of cause of occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Gaya Court. It is well settled law by the decisions of the Apex Court in - 2 - the case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100 that a case can be tried by a court, only if some part of offence have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. In the instant case, from the perusal of the complaint case and the materials on record, I do not find that any part of occurrence took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Gaya Court. As such, the complaint petition itself was not maintainable in Gaya court. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.05.2005, passed in Complaint Case no. C1-04 of 2005 / Tr. No. 1235 of 2005 is hereby quashed. However, I direct the Registrar, Civil Court, Gaya to transfer the complaint case no. C1- 04 of 2005 / Tr. No. 1235 of 2005 to Registrar, Nawada where the case may proceed de novo in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)