Madhavendra Saran, J.
1. In this Miscellaneous application prayer has been made to quash the order dated 22.9.2005 passed by Shri O.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 45/03 corresponding to G.R. No. 135/03 whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to commit the case and try the same in the district of Kaimur when the offence has taken place at Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the marriage of informant's elder sister Sangita Pandey was performed on 12.5.1999 with Manish Pandey as per Hindu custom in which several presentations were given. On the day of marriage accused Manish Pandey and his other family members made further demand of Rs. 40,000 cash, fridge, V.C.R., etc. Informant's family expressed their difficulty in providing the same. They were mentally tortured by the accused persons and after great persuasion the bidai ceremony was performed and the victim girl was taken to Varanasi at the place of her husband. At Varansai also the demand of accused persons continued. Sangita was ill-treated by them. In this way the story continued. It has been alleged that due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand she was burnt to death at Varanasi. The police after investigation submitted final form on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Kaimur at Bhabhua on 17.2.2004 took cognizance under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of commitment the question of territorial jurisdiction was raised by the petitioners which the learned Magistrate rejected by the impugned order dated 22.9.2005. Against the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present application for quashing before this Court.
3. It has been submitted that as per allegations actual offence was committed at Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the Court at Bhabhua has no jurisdiction to try the same. In this connection learned Counsel submitted that as per allegation the act of maltreatment and humiliation was meted out at Varanasi. The victim lady was burnt to death at Varanasi and no part of the alleged occurrence took place at Bhabhua and, therefore, only the Court at Varanasi has territorial jurisdiction over the matter. He also pointed out that if totality of allegation is taken together then the cause of action arose at Varanasi only. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in : 2004CriLJ4180 given in the case of Y. Abraham Aiit and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 submitted that even on the day of marriage the husband of the deceased lady and his other family members made demand of dowry. This demand continued and whenever they came to Bhabhua, they repeated the demand. He submitted that dowry demand was made at Bhabhua also and so the Court of Bhabhua would have jurisdiction to try the offence.
5. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) deals with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial. It reads as follows:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.-Every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Sections 177 to 186 of the Code deal with venue of place and trial. Section 178 of the Code reads as follows:
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 partly in another, or
(c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code says about the continuing offence. According to which one series of acts so connected together as to form same transaction can be tried together.
6. From the allegations made in the FIR it is very much clear that the dowry demand continued throughout the entire occurrence. Such demand was made at Bhabhua and Varanasi. The deceased died a dowry death. Because of dowry demand the deceased was maltreated and humiliated. Demand of dowry and sending wife back to her parents and not calling her back form one transaction. In the aforesaid situation on a consideration of total allegation. I find that the offence alleged could be tried by Court of either of places.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion the Court of Bhabhua has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Therefore, this case can be tried by the Court of Bhabhua.
8. This application accordingly stands dismissed.