IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33291 of 2006 BAIJNATH SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. ----------- 6. 26.8.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who happens to be the father-in-law of complainant’s daughter is aggrieved by order dated 25.8.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No.1996(C) of 2005, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that the complainant, Prabhawati Singh, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging that her daughter was being tortured by the accused persons, ten in number, for allegedly demanding a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage took place at Delhi and the alleged torture of the daughter of the complainant also took place at Delhi and the Patna court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and the same was barred under Section 177 Cr.P.C. What Section 177 Cr.P.C. states is that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose territorial jurisdiction it was committed. The word ‘ordinarily’ was interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of A. Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2004 SCW page 4788. - 2 - In the instant case, the admitted position is that the entire cause of action relating to the alleged marriage and torture of the daughter of the complainant took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Delhi and the court at Patna having no territorial jurisdiction over areas of Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the Complaint Case No.1996(C) of 2005, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. However, the court below is directed to return the complaint filed by the complainant to her, if a prayer is made in that regard, so that she may file the same, if advised, before the appropriate forum. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)