IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44400 of 2006 1. MD. IMTEYAZ AHMAD 2. Md. Shakil @ Munna Miyan, Both S/o Md. Late Mahboob 3. Ishrat Parveen, W/f Md. Shakil Ahmad 4. Aasma Khatoon, W/o late Mahboob Alam Versus 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Tabbassum Parveen, W/o Md. Imteyaz Ahmad. ----------- 5/ 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. In the case petitioners have been alleged for demand of dowry and causing of torture due to its non-fulfillment. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that demand, if any, was made at Gaya. That was prior to marriage and no cognizance has been taken under Section ¾ of Dowry of Prohibition Act and rest of the offence (incident) allegedly took place at Jehanabad. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, once demand prior to marriage is disbelieved or not accepted, the territorial jurisdiction comes to Jehanabad. The learned A.P.P. also failed to point out any part of the incident after the marriage which had taken place at Gaya. Thus, I find the territorial jurisdiction of Gaya (Sherghati) Court lacking. The application is allowed. The order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the J.M., Ist Class, Gaya (Sherghati) in Complaint Case no. 503 of 2005 is quashed. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)