S.P. Pathak, J.

1. This revision petition under section 401 C.P.C. against the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court (Sati Nivaran), Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.319/2006 whereby the order under section 177 Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur has been set aside by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Petition No.319/2006.

2. Briefly stated, the necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision petitioner that on a complaint lodged by non-petitioner Smt. Yogita Rani Singhani wife of petitioner Piyush Ram Singhani resident of 111/97, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur in police station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, FIR No.57/2006 was registered under sections 498A and 406 IPC. Charge-sheet was filed. The learned trial court vide its order dated 20.09.2006 on the application of the petitioner filed under section 177 Cr.P.C. after hearing both the sides passed an order to the effect that the court at Jaipur had no jurisdiction and prosecution was free to move before the competent court for trial of the accused in accordance with law. This order was challenged before the learned revisional court. The learned revisional court vide its order dated 19.02.2007 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts stated in the FIR/complaint would disclose that no demand of dowry or harassment was made to the non-petitioner at Jaipur, therefore, the Jaipur court had no jurisdiction. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the entire facts allowed the application moved under section 177 Cr.P.C. and the learned revisional court in a cursory manner allowed the application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel has read over both the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below and also the complaint. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 547 (S.C.) : 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 466 (S.C.) : 2004 Cr.L.J. 4180, Manish Ratan & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr. 2006(3) Apex Court Judgments 672 (S.C.) : 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 126 (S.C.) : 1 (2007) CCR 8 (SC), Chatar Singh v. State of M.P. 2007(1) Criminal Court Cases 1022 (S.C.) : 1 (2007) CCR 12 (SC), Pankaj Saxena and others v. State of Rajasthan 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 64 and Narain Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Shyamlal Jat 2008(1) C.L.R. (Raj.) 67.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the instant case non-petitioner soon after the marriage was harassed for dowry and in fact she was compelled to leave the house because of dowry on false allegations. The demand of dowry was made at Ajmer as well as at Jaipur. Learned counsel submits that in view of the provisions of section 178 Cr.P.C. and also in view of Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. the courts while examining the question of jurisdiction are required to take into consideration the fact that if part of an offence is committed at another place than the place where the part of the offence was committed, the court situated there shall also have the jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of As it Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others AIR 2007 SC 1925 , Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat and another Criminal Appeal No.839/2008 and Brijesh Jhanvar @ Rohit and others v. State of Rajasthan & Another S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1604/2005 decided on 24.04.2007.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and also perused the material available on record.

6. It is to be seen that in the instant case the allegations made in the FIR lodged were to the effect that soon after the marriage, the non-petitioner was dealt with in cruel manner. She was harassed. The demand of dowry was also made and she has left to Jaipur. In Jaipur also some money was passed on relating to demand. It is also alleged that on telephones also at Jaipur threatenings were given. The learned trial court though stated that no such allegations were made in complaint regarding harassment given to non-petitioner and regarding entrustment but on perusal of the entire complaint and the material available on record prima facie it does not appear that no mention has been made in the complaint regarding allegations of harassment and demand of dowry made at Jaipur. The authorities which have been cited before me by both the sides clearly lays down the principle that cause of action is required to be determined taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and not in isolation of fact technically. A perusal of sections 177, 178 and 181(4) Cr.P.C. reveals that the cases can be tried and investigated at a place where part of crime has been committed. Ordinarily, a case is to be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction crime in committed. In a case where the offence is committed partly in the local area of a court and partly in the local area of the another court then both the areas will have the jurisdiction to try the matter. It further appears from the perusal of the above provisions of Cr.P.C. that in a case where there are several acts committed at different local areas then the courts having jurisdiction in different area shall also have jurisdiction to try the case. In relation to an offence committed regarding mis-appropriation or criminal breach of trust, the matters can be enquired and tried by the court within whose local area property or part of the property which is subjected to offence was received. The legal position which is not in dispute and cannot be disputed emerges out is that in cases where offence is committed at several places or is a continuing offence then the courts in whose local jurisdiction part of the offence has been committed shall have the jurisdiction.

7. In the instant case, as has been found by the learned revisional court that on perusal of the complaint, it was apparent that threatening was given to the non-petitioner on telephone at Jaipur. The marriage between the parties took place at Ajmer and soon after the marriage, the non-petitioner was harassed and she was not permitted to enter into the kitchen for the reason that she was suffering from some disease (acute sinusitis). It also appears from the allegations that initially a demand for Rs. 10 lacs was made and in marriage dowry of Rs.4 lacs was paid. On 23.03.2006, the husband of the non-petitioner left her at her parental house and on the same day a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid and on 10.04.2006 when the husband came at Jaipur, a sum of Rs.65,000/- was paid. In detail the description regarding harassment has been stated in the complaint. It is not necessary to examine minutely each and every detail of the allegations. It is suffice to say that the learned trial court has completely ignored the contents of the FIR/complaint and the learned revisional court rightly found that the case could be tried at Jaipur also for the alleged commission of offences made in the complaint, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned trial court. It is not necessary to discuss the various authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties for the simple reason that there is no dispute about the principles laid down in the authorities that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which gives cause to enforce the legal enquiry for redress in a court of law. In the instant case, as discussed herein above and as found that the allegations available in the FIR/complaint discloses that part of the offence was committed at Jaipur also, therefore, the court at Jaipur is also having the jurisdiction to try the case.

8. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merit and the same stands dismissed.