https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274910 Territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings lies ordinarily with the court where the offence was committed. Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates an exception for continuing offences, but only where the offending conduct continues in more than one local area. On the facts pleaded, no act constituting the offence and no continuing demand was alleged at Chennai after the complainant had left the matrimonial home, so no part of the cause of action arose there. The Chennai Magistrate therefore lacked jurisdiction, the proceedings were liable to be quashed, and the complaint had to be returned for presentation before the competent court. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274910 Territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings lies ordinarily with the court where the offence was committed. Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates an exception for continuing offences, but only where the offending conduct continues in more than one local area. On the facts pleaded, no act constituting the offence and no continuing demand was alleged at Chennai after the complainant had left the matrimonial home, so no part of the cause of action arose there. The Chennai Magistrate therefore lacked jurisdiction, the proceedings were liable to be quashed, and the complaint had to be returned for presentation before the competent court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274910