IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42525 of 2007 SANTOSH KUMAR S/O ARUN KUMAR --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RENU KUMARI W/O SANTOSH KUMAR -- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.C.Verma, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 10 20.09.2010 Impugned order taking cognizance and issuance of process made on 08.05.2007 has been assailed on the ground that Nawada Court would not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter and the victim was mentally ill and was being treated of her ailment at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. Subsequent thereto an application seeking divorce was filed on 27.04.2006 at New Delhi whereafter the present case has been lodged. So far as the first submission is concerned, this Court finds from paragraph no. 2 of the complaint that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in question. So far as the second submission of the petitioner is/are concerned, in my view, the impugned order cannot be challenged on these grounds. These are the defence of the petitioner which has to be raised at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. In the impugned order learned Court below, on a consideration of the evidence brought on record, has found that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons, and hence cognizance has been taken and processes has been directed to be issued. The application lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)