Surinder Singh, J.
1. In this Revision Petition, the complainant has challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge passed on 4.2.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 18 of 2008 whereby the order of framing the charge under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code against the respondents was set aside.
2. The relevant fact can be stated thus. Petitioner, before her marriage resided in village Seri Tehsil and Police Station Amb District Una, H.P. with her parents. On 12.11.2003 she was married to respondent Vikram Sharma, resident of Chandigarh. She alleged torture and demand of dowry in her matrimonial home, by respondent No. 1 and his relatives, who are the co-respondents.
3. She alleged in her compliant that in the month of April, 2004, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have slapped the petitioner and threatened her to tolerate all type of cruelty meted out to her. At that time she was carrying a pregnancy. Thus, fearing her death, she thought it proper to return to the parental house at Amb. Thereafter, she gave birth to a female child. Her husband did not visit her. She approached the local Panchayat. Respondent No. 1 was summoned. He gave assurance to maintain her and the child properly and also not to cause any torture to her, but the respondents did not adhere to such undertaking. Ultimately, she approached local police at Amb with a request to register a case against the respondents. It is alleged that without calling other respondents, police got effected the compromise with her husband respondent No. 1. Despite that her husband denied maintenance and threatened to divorce her. She again approached the Police Station Amb District Una, H.P. requesting them to register a case but the police refused to accept her request for the reasons that respondents were residing beyond their territorial jurisdiction, i.e., in Union Territory Chandigarh. She also demanded the dowry items lying at Chandigarh to which respondent were dishonestly misappropriating, those were also denied.
4. To substantiate the complaint, she examined preliminary evidence on the same lines.
5. Learned trial Court also called for the report of the Police. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the report for the consideration of the learned trial Court.
6. After considering the enquiry report and the preliminary evidence, respondents were summoned as accused vide order dated 23.3.2007, under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code.
7. Pre-charge evidence was led. Respondents moved an application that no case was made out for framing the charge for their trial, within the jurisdiction of the said Court.
8. Vide order dated 19.3.2008, their plea did not find favour with the learned trial Court thus a charge was ordered to be framed under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. This was successfully assailed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 18 of 2008, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the learned trial Court to try the case. Thus, the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court were not allowed to continue and the complaint filed by the petitioner was directed to be returned to the complainant-wife for presenting it before the Court having the territorial jurisdiction to try the matter, in accordance with law, if so advised. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is wrong and illegal.
9. Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner argued that the marriage had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court at Amb. Respondent No. 1 had assured and agreed to keep the petitioner with dignity and honour at Amb. She was denied maintenance and threatened to be divorced. The pre-charge and preliminary evidence would go to show that the cruelty and demand of dowry was a continuing process and had completed the chain of events, which ultimately ended in filing the complaint at the place where the complainant has been residing. Thus the Judicial Magistrate, Amb is competent to try and entertain the complaint.
10. The above arguments have been countered by Sh. Suneet Goel, Advocate appearing for the respondents on the ground that the offence of cruelty is not a continuing offence and thee is no allegation of cruelty having taken place at Amb. Therefore, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge reversing the order of the learned trial Court is legally and factually correct.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
12. In the instant case respondents were summoned only under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code and not for retaining the alleged dowry articles lying at the matrimonial house at Chandigarh.
13. A bare perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner clearly reveals that all the acts of cruelty were allegedly committed at Chandigarh. Not even a single act of cruelty is alleged to have been committed in the house of her parents in village Seri Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., falling within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate Amb.
14. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 of the Code reads as under:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
15. In Rajindra Ramchandra Kavalekar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. : (2009) 11 SCC 286 the Supreme Court relying upon Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra : (2000) 7 SCC 640 observed in para 22 as under:
22. So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is concerned the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed.
The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed and the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another court. The venue of enquiry or trial is primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint or the charge-sheet.
16. In a case of the like nature, Supreme Court in Bhura Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : (2008) 11 SCC 103 while noting the facts disclosing that the complainant had left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and was now residing in the parental house and that all the alleged acts, as per the complainant had taken place in the matrimonial house in another State, i.e. Punjab. Against this factual scenario, the inevitable conclusion was that no part of cause of action arose in the parental house at Rajasthan therefore, the Magistrate concerned was held to have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter thus, the proceedings were quashed and the complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant granting her liberty to file the same in the appropriate Court to deal with, in accordance with law.
17. As already discussed above, the cruelty in the present case is alleged within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Chandigarh and not in the parental house at Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Not providing the maintenance, as alleged in the complaint while residing in the house of the parents would not bring it within the meaning of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code so as to confer territorial jurisdiction of Court at Amb.
18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner intends to take the benefit of Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal procedure which is an exception to Section 177 referred to above with respect to the place of inquiry or trial. Section 178(c) of the Code provides that where an offence is continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one. According to him, offence of 'cruelty' is a continuing one and also falls within the definition of cruelty.
19. It is well settled that continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all, that it is one of those offences which arises out of the failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that on every occasion such disobedience or non-compliance occurs or recurs, there is the offence committed.
20. In the instant case, the factual position is that the complainant herself left the matrimonial house in the year 2004 on account of alleged dowry demands by the respondents. Thereafter not even a single whisper of allegation about any demand of dowry or commission of act constituting an offence much less in the parental house at Amb was made. That being so the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to the continuance of offence cannot be applied.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, as such the revision petition is dismissed.