1. By making this application, under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are accused in CR Case No. 553 of 2008, under sections 498(A)/323/34 IPC, has sought for transfer of the case from the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor, Nagaon, where the case is presently pending, to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. The ground for seeking transfer are, broadly speaking, thus:

The marriage having been solemnized between the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant, i.e., the opposite party herein, at Kaliabor, the complainant came to, and started living at, her matrimonial house, with the petitioner No. 1, as her husband, at Golaghat, where the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are mother and sister respectively of the petitioner No. 1, have been living. The opposite party, soon after her marriage, started putting pressure on the petitioner No. 1 to live with her separately from her family. As the petitioner No. 1 did not agree to what the opposite party wanted inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 could not have left his mother and sister, the petitioner No. 1 being the only male member in the family, the opposite party started raising quarrel on one pretext and another. Eventually, she left her matrimonial house and, after having gone back to her parental house, at village Jayantipur, under Kaliabor Police Station, in the District of Nagaon, she has, now, instituted the said complaint case falsely alleging, inter alia, that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband (i.e., the petitioner No. 1), by her mother-in-law (i.e., the petitioner No. 2) and by her sister-in-law (i.e., the petitioner No. 3), because her parents could not accede to the demands for money and other valuables raised by the accused-petitioners and she has been thrown out of her matrimonial house.

2. The petitioners contend that according to the complaint, which the opposite party has lodged, she has been subjected to cruelty at Golaghat and, hence, the learned Magistrate, at Kaliabor, where the complainant is presently residing, had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences committed by the present petitioners under sections 498(A)/323/34, IPC and the complaint can be quashed. However, as the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor, has already taken cognizance of the offences aforementioned, though the offences have not been, according to the petitioners, committed within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, at Kaliabor, it is submitted, on behalf of the accused-petitioners, that instead of quashing the complaint may be transferred to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, which is the competent court inasmuch as the offences, if any, in the present case, have been committed within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat.

3. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, and Mr. D.R. Saikia, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party.

4. It is not in dispute that the question of territorial jurisdiction of a criminal court has to be decided, at the time of taking of cognizance, on the basis of what the complaint, in a given case, discloses. While deciding the question as to whether he has or he does not have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence, what a Magistrate has to bear in mind is that he shall assume the contents of the complaint to be true and if, the contents of the complainant, on the basis of the assumption that the contents are true, disclose that an offence has been committed within the territorial limits of his jurisdiction, he can take cognizance of such offence or offences, as the complaint may disclose provided that there is no other legal impediment in taking of such cognizance.

5. There can be no dispute, as is correctly pointed out by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, that if none of the acts, which had allegedly constituted the offences, was committed at Kaliabor, the learned Judicial Magistrate, at Kaliabor, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused-petitioners.

6. The question, therefore, is as to whether the complaint, in the present case, discloses commission of any act or acts, constituting any offence(s) having taken place within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor.

7. While considering the above aspect of the case, it needs to be pointed out that according to the complainant, as she had failed to conceive, her husband, having connived with the other accused persons, started rebuking and assaulting her in various ways and though a large number of valuables had been given to the complainant, at the time of her marriage, by her parents and relatives, her husband (i.e., the accused No. 1) demanded Rs. 1,00,000 from the complainant's father for purchase of motor cycle and threatened her with dire consequences if she failed to bring money from her parental home. As the complainant's father could not comply with the demand so raised, the complainant was subjected to greater degree of cruelty and, having been left with no alternative, the complainant brought a sum of Rs. 10,000 from her father, but this did not satisfy the accused persons and, therefore, they started putting greater pressure on the complaint demanding money and, on the failure of the complainant to comply with their demands, they started torturing her by assaulting as well as keeping her starving. The complainant had to bear all these torture. However, on the date of the occurrence, at about 9 p.m., the accused persons assaulted and injured her and turned her out of her matrimonial home. The complainant also heard the accused persons discussing that they would burn the complainant. The complainant, thereafter, returned to her father's house, whereupon she was medically examined and treated.

8. From a microscopic reading of the contents of the complaint, in question, what becomes clear is that though the demand for money was allegedly raised at the matrimonial house, at Golaghat, by the accused petitioners, the fact remains that the money was asked to be paid by bringing the same from the complainant's parents, who reside at Kaliabor. It is also the complainant's case that forced by the circumstances, she had to bring Rs. 10,000 from her father. As the complainant's father, admittedly, lives at Kaliabor, it clearly follows that the money was allegedly brought, on the demand being raised at Golaghat, from the complainant's father at Kaliabor. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that no act, constituting the alleged offence under sections 498(A), had taken place at Kaliabor.

9. When a woman, as a wife, is forced by circumstances, created by her husband and/or relatives of her husband, to bring money from her parents to escape torture and assault at her matrimonial house, the place, where her parental house exists, and/or the place from where, she had to bring money, would also be a place, where part of the offence can be said to have been committed.

10. Situated, thus, it becomes clear that when the demand for money having been raised at Golaghat, the money was allegedly brought by the complainant from her parental house at Kaliabor, the Judicial Magistrate, at Kaliabor, had, undoubtedly, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence aforementioned.

11. This court does not, therefore, find any infirmity in the act of taking of cognizance of the offences, in question, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor, when a part of the offence under section 498A read with section 34, IPC had taken place at Kaliabor. As the assault, which has allegedly taken place on the complainant as a result of her failure to bring the allegedly demanded amount of Rs. 1,00,000, the act of assault cannot be considered completely divorced from, or wholly independent of, the dema

nd for money raised at Kaliabor. In such circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaliabor, did have jurisdiction not only to take cognizance of the offence under section 498(A) read with section 34, IPC, but also of the alleged offence under section 323 read with section 34, IPC. 12. When the cognizance has been taken by a court, which was competent to take cognizance of the offences aforementioned, and when the complainant resides at Kaliabor, the case at hand, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, cannot be transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, for disposal in accordance with law. 13. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this court finds no merit in this revision. The revision, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.