IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1337 of 2009 Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Yadav, son of Sri Lakshman Prasad, resident of village-Pakri, P.S.-Ara Nawadah, District-Bhojpur. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Anita Devi, wife of Sri Satish Kumar Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Kazipur, Naya Tola, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna. ……….Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 20.09.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.2231 C/02 by which the petition filed by the accused including the petitioner under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant-opposite party no.2 was married to the accused Satish Yadav on 23.02.2002 at Patna. At the time of marriage, father of the complainant had given cash as well as the articles as gifts and Duragman was performed on 22.10.2001. After Duragman, she went to her Sasural at Pakri where the accused demanded Hero Honda Motorcycle and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- for which she was tortured. Finally on 1.10.2002, she was brought at Patna 2 by the father-in-law and Dever Awadhesh Kumar Yadav and left her at Nayatola where her Naihar situated. The complainant was examined on S.A. After inquiry, cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M, Patna vide order dated 22.01.2003 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused including the petitioner. Under Section 244 Cr.P.C. six witnesses were examined on 5.01.2009. The petitioner and others filed a petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. to discharge them, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.06.2009. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the district of Bhojpur and the Magistrate at Patna has no jurisdiction to try the offence as no part of offence has been committed at Patna. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that on perusal of the complaint petition (Annexure-A), it appears that the cause of action has also arisen at Patna as mentioned in Paragraph no.11. It has been mentioned in paragraph 11 that on 1.10.2002, the father-in-law and 3 brother-in-law of the complainant brought the complainant to Naya Tola Mohalla and asked to go her house and also told her to ask the father to meet the demand as demanded earlier. It also appears from paragraph no.14 that after ousting the complainant from her matrimonial house, the accused did not make any contact. Thus, the cause of action has also arisen at Patna and the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to deal with the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. From perusal of the complaint petition as well as the witnesses adduced on behalf of the complainant, it appears that the cause of action has also arisen at Patna and the learned S.D.J.M, Patna has also jurisdiction to deal with the matter and try the case. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)