Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Sections 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing FIR No. 276 dated July 6, 1994 under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Panal Code, and the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, along with all the subsequent proceedings, pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak. 2. The present FIR has been registered on the complaint filed by Smt. Raj Rani, mother of Smt. Parveen wife of petitioner No. 3, on the ground of cruelty and the criminal breach of trust meted out to Smt. Parveen at the hands of the petitioners. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. Parveen. Petitioner No. 3 is her husband. Petitioner No. 4 is the elder brother of petitioner No. 3, whereas petitioner No. 5 is the wife of petitioner No. 4, Thus, it appears, entire family of the in-laws of Smt. Parveen has been roped in the said FIR. 3. Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that a decree of divorce between Smt. Parveen and Ashok Kumar petitioner had been passed as back as April 25, 1994, whereas the present FIR was lodged on July 6, 1994. All the dowry articles had been returned to Smt. Parveen. He has contended that no appeal against the decree of divorce had been filed by Smt. Parveen. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the marriage between Smt. Parveen and Ashok Kumar petitioner had been solemnised at Ghaziabad. The alleged entrustment had taken place at Ghaziabad. The alleged cruelty meted out to Smt. Parveen had also been caused at Ghaziabad. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Court at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. 4. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has come on record that the cause of action had arisen at Ghaziabad as the marriage between the parties had taken place there and the alleged cruelty had also been caused to Smt. Parveen at Ghaziabad. The alleged entrustment of dowry articles as well as the amount of Rs. 10,000/- had also taken place there. The accused-petitioners are also residing at Ghaziabad. The alleged entrustment of dowry articles as well as the amount of Rs. 10,000/- had also taken place there. The accused-petitioners are also residing at Ghaziabad. Thus, the Court at Rohtak had no jurisdiction to conduct trial of the petitioners. In Hari Prem Rastogi v. Union Territory, Chan- digarh, 1994 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 5, it was held that as the alleged offence had been caused at Meerut, the case could not be tried at Chandigarh. Further, it was held by the learned Single Judge that under "Criminal Procedure Code, an offence has to be tried at the place where it is committed." The proceedings under Section 498- A, Indian Penal Code, had thus, been quashed on this ground. 5. Moreover, it has come on record that decree of divorce between Smt. Parveen and Ashok Kumar petitioner had been passed on April 25, 1994. The said decree of divorce has not been challenged by Smt. Parveen. Thus, the decree of divorce allegedly granted to Ashok Kumar petitioner seems to have become final. The present FIR is dated July 6, 1994. After the grant of the decree of divorce, the registration of the case against the petitioners on the ground of cruelty and breach of trust is an abuse of the process of Court. 6. The averments made in the petition have not been controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. No one has put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Raj Rani complainant, who is the mother of Smt. Parveen. 7. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that it is a fit case to quash the first information report registered against the petitioners. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The aforementioned first information report and all subsequent proceedings undertaken pursuant thereto are quashed.