S.C.AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Deoria in criminal revision no.22 of 2007 (Durga Prasad Baranwal Vs. State & others) as well as order dated 27.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Deoria in criminal case no.2994 of 2006 State Vs. Durga Prasad and others under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, Deoria.
(2.) THE petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid criminal case. Earlier, respondents no.2 to 6 were summoned to face trial under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. An application was moved on behalf of the accused under section 177 Cr.P.C. challenging the territorial jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, which was rejected. The respondents filed criminal revision, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the revisional court holding that the cause of action arose in District Mau and the Courts at Deoria had no jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 27.8.2007 for writing a letter to District Judge for transferring the case to Mau. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that part of the cause of action arose in District Deoria where the petitioner resides and the Court at Deoria has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to try the respondents no.2 to 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 5 submits that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it appears that the whole story of harassment and mental cruelty etc. on account of demand of dowry is alleged to have taken place at Mau where the family members of the husband of the petitioner reside and no part of cause of action took place at Deoria and, therefore, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria had no jurisdiction to try the case.
(3.) IN rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mental cruelty is a continuing offence and the petitioner is residing at Deoria and, therefore, the cause of action arises at Deoria also. Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. provides as follows :- 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. - Every offence shall ordinary be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of inquiry or trial. -(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or (c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has one, or (d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired to or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. ;