Territorial jurisdiction in criminal complaints depends on place of commission; later residence does not make cruelty a continuing offence.

Territorial jurisdiction in criminal complaints is governed by the place of commission under Section 177 CrPC unless a clear exception under Section 178 applies. The Supreme Court held that Datia had no jurisdiction because the alleged acts of cruelty were stated to have occurred at Jabalpur, and no part of the offence was shown to have been committed at Datia. Mere later residence of the complainant with her father did not make the alleged cruelty a continuing offence for clause (c) of Section 178. The impugned order was set aside and the matter directed to the competent court at Jabalpur.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court at Datia had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint, and whether the allegations disclosed a continuing offence so as to attract clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 makes local commission of the offence the ordinary rule for inquiry and trial. Section 178 provides exceptions where the place of commission is uncertain, where an offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another, where it is a continuing offence, or where several acts are done in different local areas. A continuing offence is one that persists by reason of continued disobedience or repeated continuance of the offence. On the allegations in the complaint, the material acts were said to have occurred at Jabalpur and there was nothing to show that any act constituting the offence took place at Datia. The mere fact that the complainant later resided with her father did not convert the alleged cruelty into a continuing offence at Datia. The earlier decisions treating matrimonial cruelty as a continuing offence were distinguishable on their facts because they involved allegations connecting the local area where the complaint was filed with some part of the offence.

Conclusion: The Court held that Datia lacked territorial jurisdiction and that clause (c) of Section 178 was not attracted. The impugned order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The criminal case could not proceed at Datia, and the matter was directed to be transferred to the competent court at Jabalpur.

Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases remains governed by the place of commission under Section 177 unless a clear statutory exception under Section 178 is shown; alleged matrimonial cruelty does not become a continuing offence merely because the complainant later lives elsewhere.

---