Judgment A.C. Goyal, J.-This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the accused persons to quash the FIR No. 102/99, registered at Mahila Police Station, Kota, for offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. 2. Factsin brief are that the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Kavita Tyagi submitted a written report on 18-6-1999 at Mahila Police Station, Kota, with the averments that she was married to accused Sandeep at Gurgaon on 22-1-1999 and her parents spent a sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs in that marriage. She started living with her husband and other in-laws at Gurgaon. After some time the accused petitioners started harassing her and raised dowry demands. Thereafter, she was compelled to go at Kota to her parents and all the articles of’ stridhan’ were taken away from her. 3. On the basis of this report, criminal case as stated hereinabove was registered and investigation commenced. .4. I haveheard learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no territorial jurisdiction at Kota as the marriage was solemanized at Gurgaon, articles of ‘stridhan’ if any, were given to the complainant at Gurgaon and the acts of cruelty, dowry demands and harassments took place there and thus no offence or any part of the offence was committed at Kota. It was also contended that no demand to return the articles of’stridhan’ was ever made, hence offence under Section 406, IPC could not be constituted at all. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred Rule 6.3 and 6.4 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, which are as under :-- 6.3. Action when offence occurring in another police station is reported when the occurrence of a cognizable offence in another police station jurisdiction is reported, the fact shall be recorded, in the daily diary and information shall be sent to the officer incharge of the police station in the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. Meanwhile all possible lawful measures shall be taken to secure the arrest of the offender and the detection of the offence. 6.4. Meanwhile all possible lawful measures shall be taken to secure the arrest of the offender and the detection of the offence. 6.4. When the offence appears to have occurred in other police station--(1) If a police officer after registering a case and commencing an investigation discovers that the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of another police station he shall at once send information to the officer incharge of such Police Station; .(2) Upon receipt of information such officer shall proceed without delay to the place where the investigation is being held and undertake the investigation. 5. He also placed reliance upon two Judgment s of this Court reported in Sanjay Vadhawa vs. State of Rajasthan (2000) 2 Raj Cri C 1414 and Dr. Ashok Pasricha vs. State of Rajasthan (1999) 1 RCC 292 (sic). In Sanjay Vadhawa’s case (Supra), it was held that marriage was not performed at Bikaner. Neither cruelty was alleged to have been committed at Bikaner and the articles of ‘stridhan’ were handed-over to the petitioners there nor they were obliged to return the same at Bikaner and thus no offence was committed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court at Bikaner. Hence, offences could not be investigated and tried at Bikaner. Similar view was taken by this Court in Dr. Ashok Pasricha’s case (Supra). In the present case the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners on the point of territorial jurisdiction finds support from both the Judgment s. But learned Counsel for the complainant contended that FIR could not be quashed on the ground that no offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of concerned Police Station at Kota. Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of Hon. Apex Court delivered in Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728 : (1999 Cri LJ 4566). On the similar facts, the Hon. Supreme Court held as under :-- .(1) The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156, Cr. P.C. to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged. .(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction. P.C. to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged. .(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction. .(3) After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170, Cr. P.C. and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. .(4) If the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it. 6. Keeping in view this Judgment of the Apex Court, the prayer for quashing the FIR cannot be allowed. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner raised one more point that another FIR No. 760/99 was registered at Gurgaon on 11-9-99 on the same facts and on this count also the FIR No. 102/99, registered at Police Station, Kota, should be quashed. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that no second FIR was registered at Gurgaon at the instance of the complainant. Rather a complaint was made to the National Human Rights Commission and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, for necessary action along with copy of this FIR. I have considered the submissions. A perusal of the second FIR registered at Police Station Gurgaon, goes to show that it is a copy of the FIR lodged at Kota and this copy was received at concerned Police Station Gurgaon by post and case was registered at Gurgaon also. But the FIR No. 102/99 was first within time as it was filed on 18-6-1999, therefore, the same cannot be quashed on this count also. 8. Inthe result, this petition is dismissed. The Investigation Officer is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible. Case diary of the Mahila Police Station, Kota City, be sent back immediately.