JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. has been filed by accused petitioners to quash the F.I.R. No. 135/95 registered at police station Sadar, Bikaner. 2. Facts are that complainant Smt. Anita was married to Sanjay, petitioner No. 1 on 20.11.1992 at Jhansi. Quite a big number of articles as well as cash were given as 'istridhan'. For about three months Anita happily lived with the petitioners at Jhansi but thereafter the petitioners started harassing her to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. When Sanjay came to Bikaner for the first time after marriage, he asked Anita to press her parents for arranging the sum demanded. She lived at Bikaner for three months and since amount was not paid, nobody came to fetch her from her inlaws side. Ultimately her mother alongwith her brother-in-law Mahesh went to leave her at Jhansi with a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. This amount was paid to Smt. Shankuntala, petitioner No. 3. The whole amount was not pain therefore, all the petitioners were unhappy. Ultimately it was on 10.8.1994 that Anita was left at Bikaner with direction that in case the amount is arranged then only she would be acceptable. It was further alleged in the complaint that Anita was given beatings at Jhansi and was asked to put signatures on various blank papers. On 8.8.1994 a petition for divorce was filed in the Family Court of Jhansi which caused mental cruelty to her. She came to know about divorce on 28.3.1995. She went to Jhansi thereafter but was not allowed to enter into the house. The petitioners were asked on 28.3.1995 at Jhansi to deliver the articles which were 'istridhan' of Anita but the same were not delivered. A complaint under Secs. 498-A and 406 I.P.C. was filed by Smt. Anita before Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner which was forwarded to police station Sadar, Bikaner under Section 156(3) Cr.RC. and on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there was no territorial jurisdiction at Bikaner and the F.I.R. could not have been registered and investigated there. and on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there was no territorial jurisdiction at Bikaner and the F.I.R. could not have been registered and investigated there. He submitted that the marriage was not performed at Bikaner neither curelty is alleged to have been committed at Bikaner nor the articles were handed over to the petitioners at Bikaner nor they were obliged to return the same at Bikaner as no demand to return was made at Bikaner. His contention is that the offence was not committed within the local jurisdiction of Bikaner Court, therefore, as per provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C. the offences could not be enquired into and tried by a Court at Bikaner. He has relied on Allahabad High Court Judgment in Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34048, decided on 7.11.1992 , in which it was held that when offence of 498-A I.P.C. was committed in Bareilly case could not be registered at police station Mathura. He also relied upon Hansraj Chaudhary & Ors. v. Smt. Sarita, Cr.R. No. 123 of 1992, decided on 21.4.1992 by Allahabad High Court, in which Section 177 Cr.RC. was considered in relation to offences under Secs. 498-A and 406 I.RC. and it was held that when property was given in entrustment as a place of marriage the offence under Section 406 I.RC. was triable only at that place. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to controvert the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. When the Courts at Bikaner have no territorial jurisdiction, the FIR has to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 135/95 is hereby quashed as it has been registered at Bikaner without jurisdiction.Petition allowed. *******