Territorial jurisdiction in cruelty complaints depends on where the offence arose, not the complainant's later residence.

Territorial jurisdiction in a criminal complaint depends on where the cause of action or part of the offence arose, and a complainant's later residence in another State does not by itself confer jurisdiction. Because the matrimonial home and the alleged acts of cruelty were situated in Punjab, and no part of the offence was committed in Rajasthan, the Magistrate at Sri Ganganagar had no territorial jurisdiction to proceed. The fact that the offence under Section 498A IPC may be continuing did not alter that position where the factual foundation of the complaint lay entirely outside Rajasthan. The proceedings were rightly quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint when the alleged acts of cruelty and related offences had occurred in Punjab and the complainant had later shifted to Rajasthan.

Analysis: The complaint itself showed that the matrimonial home and the alleged acts giving rise to the offences were situated in Punjab. No part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan merely because the complainant was later residing there. The fact that the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code may be continuing did not confer jurisdiction on a court where no part of the offence was committed. Since the entire factual foundation of the complaint lay outside Rajasthan, the Magistrate at Sri Ganganagar lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

Conclusion: The court at Sri Ganganagar had no territorial jurisdiction and the proceedings were rightly quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction in criminal complaints depends on where the cause of action or part of the offence arose, and a later residence of the complainant in another State does not by itself confer jurisdiction where no part of the offence was committed.

---