IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.6642 OF 2009 1. SHRI MANISH SRIVASTAVA, SON OF SHRI AWADHESH SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF SIDDHI PARK, PLOT NO. A/7, SECOND FLOOR, NAVI SAGAWI, NEAR SAI CHOWK, PUNE (MAHARASHTRA) 2. SHRI AWADHESH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE KAILASH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF KRISHNAPURI, NEAR BHAGWANPUR CHOWK, MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR) 3. SMT. SHILA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI AWADHESH SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF KRISHNAPURI, NEAR BHAGWANPUR CHOWK, MUZAFFARPUR 4. SHRI SUNIL SRIVASTAVA, SON OF SHRI AWADHESH SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF 8/5, GULMOHAR ROAD, WINDSOR, SHIPRA SUN CITY, INDIRA PURAM, GAZIABAD (UP) 5. SMT. GEETA SRIVASTAVA, WIFE OF SHRI SUNIL SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF 8/5, GULMOHAR ROAD, WINDSOR, SHIPRA SUN CITY, INDIRA PURAM, GAZIABAD (UP) 6. SHRI RAKESH RANJAN, SON OF SHRI NIRANJAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF R.H. 21, KUNAL ICON, PIMPLE SAUDAGAR, PUNE (MAHARASHTRA) 7. SMT. RAGINI RANJAN, WIFE OF SHRI RAKESH RANJAN, SON OF SHRI NIRANJAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF R.H. 21, KUNAL ICON, PIMPLE SAUDAGAR, PUNE (MAHARASHTRA ………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********* 2 03/11/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the First Information Report of Muzaffarpur Town Police Station Case No. 157 of 2005 instituted for the offences under Sections 498A, 379, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The main question raised against the First Information Report is that the territorial jurisdiction is not made out at Muzaffarpur as major part of the 2 occurrence has taken place at Pune. The language of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that “every offence shall ordinarily be enquired and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed”. In this case, it appears that the in-laws of the informant who are originally resident of Muzaffarpur had met the informant’s family and the informant at Muzaffarpur and made a demand of a car in her home. Therefore, this Court finds no error with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the case. Besides which, this case is at the initial stage and as such this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter and quash the proceedings in view of the allegations contained in the First Information Report. This application is accordingly dismissed. ANAND ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )