R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
(2.) The order dated 7.1.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case No.45 of 2012 under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners is being sought to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(3.) It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had married to one Himanshu Pandey, who unfortunately died within a month of the marriage. After Shradh ceremony was over, the accused persons conveyed to the parents of the complainant that they need not to worry as they are ready to get his second son Onkar Nath Pandey married to the complainant. After a year, the complainant married with Onkar Nath Pandey in February, 2005 after observing all rituals. Since then, she was living with Onkar Nath Pandey as wife and husband. Till 2010, she lived in her in-laws' place quite happily. When she did not bear any child, relationship in between the wife and husband and even with the in-laws became strained and they started saying that they will be getting his son married with another woman and they started forcing the complainant to go to her parents' house. She was being not only subjecting to assault and abuses but were being not provided with cloths and thereby all kinds of torture were being inflicted upon her.;