Judgment :- This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioner-A.1 to quash the FIR registered against him in Cr.No.164 of 2007 of Ramachandrapuram PS, for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 2. The first respondent herein, gave a complaint against her husband-petitioner-A.1 and other family members on 9.5.2007 to S.H.O., Ramachandrapuram PS, Medak District, alleging that at the time of her marriage with A.1 that took place on 28.11.2005, her parents gave Rs.1,60,000/- towards furniture, Rs.65,000/- for purchase of motor bike, Rs.60,000/- for cloths and also spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- for marriage expenses and subsequently the accused demanded a car and the complainant’s parents gave Rs.2,50,000/- in March 2006 and in spite of it, the accused have been harassing her mentally and physically demanding more dowry. It is even alleged by her in the complaint that the accused also forced her to do prostitution and unable to bear their torture, she came down to her cousin’s house at BHEL Township, Ramachandrapuram for shelter. 3. The police registered the complaint as FIR in Cr.No.164 of 2007 under Section 498-A IPC and took up investigation. Aggrieved by the same, A.1-husband of the complainant filed the present petition seeking to quash FIR. 4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor for State are heard. Records are perused. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, the marriage took place at Hurmazpur Village in Uttar Pradesh and the complainant lived for few days at her in-law’s place, which is also in Uttar Pradesh and the alleged harassment and ill-treatment also took place in Uttar Pradesh and therefore, the police at Ramachandrapuram, Medak district, have no jurisdiction to investigate the case. 6. It is not disputed that the marriage took place in Uttar Pradesh and the complainant lived for few days in her in-law’s house, situated in Uttar Pradesh. The very complaint of the first respondent is that unable to bear the torture and physical and mental harassment by A.1 and her family members, she had to come down to Ramachandrapuram and stayed with her cousin and she gave a complaint to the police at Ramachandrapuram. The case is pending investigation and no charge sheet is filed as yet. 7. The case is pending investigation and no charge sheet is filed as yet. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in ‘Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & another (2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 491 (SC))’, wherein the Apex court held as follows: “The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court. In terms of section 177 of the Code it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused.” 8. In the above case, a complaint of alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC was filed before the learned Magistrate and he forwarded the same to the police for investigation and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and it was taken on file as CC No.3532 of 2001 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The accused thereon approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction and alleged acts took place, even according to the complainant, at Nagercoil. The petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the High Court and the accused approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was contended by the complainant in the above case that the offences were continuing in terms of section 178(c) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On facts, it was held that ‘there was no allegation of continuing of the offence after complainant shifted to Chennai and therefore, the logic of Section 178(c) Cr.P.C cannot be applied’. It is to be noted that in the above case, after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed and it was found on facts that no part of the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Chennai. It was therefore held that ‘the said Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter’. 9. It is to be noted that in the above case, after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed and it was found on facts that no part of the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Chennai. It was therefore held that ‘the said Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter’. 9. In the present case, the matter is still pending investigation and no charge sheet has yet been filed and the stage of taking cognizance by Magistrate having jurisdiction is not yet reached and the question as to whether or not any particular Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in terms of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. does not arise at this stage. It cannot be disputed that an aggrieved person can make a complaint to the nearest police station. It is established principle that the FIR is intended to set the criminal law into motion and it need not disclose all the details of the alleged offence. It is for the investigating officers to elicit necessary particulars and gather the evidence during the course of investigation and file an appropriate final report before the concerned Court. The investigation cannot, however, be scuttled, especially, when the complaint discloses serious allegations against the accused. The above decision, which relates to a case where charge sheet was filed and taken cognizance by the Magistrate, is therefore not applicable to the present case, where the matter is only at the stage of investigation. 10. For the same reasons, the decision in ‘Kalaparthi Ranjit Kumar & others vs. State of A.P., & another (2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 258 (AP))’, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable, as in the said case the complaint was filed before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate as CC No.241 of 2006 and the process was issued and questioning the same, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. In fact, in the above case, it was held following the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Y. Aabraham Ajith & others Vs. In fact, in the above case, it was held following the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘Y. Aabraham Ajith & others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai &l another’ (first supra) that the prosecution does not vitiate for want of territorial jurisdiction and the complaint can be rejected for presentation before proper Court, which has territorial jurisdiction to try the offences and accordingly, it was directed that the complaint be returned for presentation before proper Court. Such a situation does not arise in the present case, as no charge sheet is filed so far before any Court. 11. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon a decision in ‘Smt. Sujata Mukherjee Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997 Crl.L.J.2985)’, wherein the Apex Court dealing with the situation of continuing offence in terms of Section 178(1) Cr.P.C. held that ‘when the complaint revealed continuing offence of mal-treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused-respondents and in such continuing offence, on some occasions all the respondents had taken part and on other occasion, one of the respondents had taken part, clause © of Section 178 Cr.P.C. is clearly attracted’. The above case also arose within the situation where the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 506-B and 323 IPC and he refused to transfer the case from Raipur to Raigarh. The said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, where the cognizance has yet taken by any Magistrate. 12. In ‘Sistu Puillam Rajul & another Vs. State of A.P., & another (2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 153)’, this Court held that ‘view that Magistrate taking cognizance must necessarily have territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well is erroneous and no quashing of proceedings can be ordered solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court taking cognizance’. In the above case, the proceedings in CC No.59 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, are sought to be quashed on the ground that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. In the above case, the proceedings in CC No.59 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, are sought to be quashed on the ground that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. After analyzing the various provisions with reference to the scheme of the Code pertaining to the jurisdiction, it was held in the above decision as follows: “From a combined reading of the above provisions, it is obvious that, the local jurisdiction of the Court of a Magistrate can be fixed by the State Government by means of a notification. The local area of the Police Station again can be fixed by the State. The Police Officer, who is in-charge of a Police Station, can investigate any cognizable case, provided the crime occurs within the limits of the local area over which the Court of a Magistrate has jurisdiction. In other words, the crime shall occur within the local limits of the Police Station and that Police Station must situate within the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate and only in such conditions the Police Officer without any order from a Court may investigate any cognizable case. Therefore, territorial limits have also been fixed to the Investigating Officer for conducting an investigation. However, sub Section (2) of Section 156 mandates that no proceeding of a Police Officer shall be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such Officer was not empowered under sub Section (1) of Section 156 to investigate. It is obvious that even if a Police Officer investigates a crime, which occurs not within the local area of the Police Station and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, in which the local area of the Police Station is situate, the proceedings at the investigating stage cannot be quashed or held to be illegal or irregular on the premise that the Investigating Officer lacks territorial jurisdiction. It is visibly clear from the above referred provisions of the Code that territorial jurisdiction shall have to be fixed by the State, which mainly depends upon the convenience of the administration. These limits can be changed or altered time to time to suit the convenience of the general public. In the above case, the decision of the Apex Court in ‘HN Rishbhud Vs. These limits can be changed or altered time to time to suit the convenience of the general public. In the above case, the decision of the Apex Court in ‘HN Rishbhud Vs. State of Delhi ( AIR 1955 SC 196 )’ was relied upon, wherein it was held that ‘a defect or illegality in the investigation however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial’. While holding that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not one of the para-meters to be considered for quashing a case, this Court in the above case held as follows: “A clear distinction is discernible from the category of cases where the proceedings are sought to be quashed on the sole premise of the Court lacking territorial jurisdiction and of the category of cases where prima facie there is no case made out even assuming the allegations made inter alia in those proceedings to be true. In the latter category of cases, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings, inasmuch as it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court, but in the former category of cases, it may be mentioned that there is a prima facie case discernible from the allegations, but the Court is precluded from trying the case for want of territorial jurisdiction. But, essentially it is a case where the proceedings shall have to be tried elsewhere. For the above reasons, quash is not the appropriate remedy in all cases where the proceedings are sought to be assailed on the sole premise of lack of territorial jurisdiction.” 13. In ‘The State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Kumar (2006(2) ALT (Crl.) 16)’ it was held as follows: “However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material”. 14. 14. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions wherein taking cognizance of the offence by a Magistrate having no territorial jurisdiction is considered to be not a valid ground to quash the proceedings altogether, the question of quashing FIR on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case does not arise. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to stiffle the investigation into a complaint, wherein serious and specific allegations are made against the accused, constituting the offences alleged. The proceedings at the investigation stage cannot therefore be quashed on the premise that investigating officer lacks territorial jurisdiction. 15. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, it is held that the proceedings in FIR in Cr.No.164 of 2007 of Ramachandrapuram PS cannot be quashed. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.