IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14354 of 2010 MANJU DEVI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 16.7.2010 Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. The sole point raised in support of the present petition is that the court at Begusarai did not have the jurisdiction to try the offences which were mainly committed, as per the allegation, within the jurisdiction of courts at Lakhisarai or at Patna, except one instance in which none of the accused except the husband could be said to have participated. In support of the contention, learned counsel has placed before the Court two decisions of the Supreme Court in Manish Ratan & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & anr reported in (2007) 1 S.C.C. 262 and . Y Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & anr. reported in (2004) 8 S.C.C. 100. The facts of those cases may indicate that the wives in Manish Ratan and Y.Abraham Ajith cases had made statements that they had themselves walked out of the matrimonial house. Here, in the present case, there is clear averment that the lady was tortured in various ways and after being deprived of her belongings, like, ornaments, etc. She was driven out of the matrimonial house on 5.1.2009 and, ultimately, the husband went to her maternal uncle’s house on 27.10.2009, demanded money as additional dowry and assaulted 2 her there also. Thus, the Court finds that the facts of the present case are quite different from those of the two decisions cited before me. In that view of the matter, it could be very difficult for this Court to say that the court at Begusarai could not have jurisdiction to try it. However, jurisdictional point may be considered after some evidenced is recorded during the trial and I direct the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai to proceed under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. and record the evidence and if he has done it, then he shall reconsider the issue and if a decision is reached by him that he could not have the jurisdiction to try it, then he should transfer the case to appropriate court for disposal. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)