Judgment : The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the case in P.R.C.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram and quash the same. 2. The petitioners herein, are the accused 2 to 7 in P.R.C.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram and in that case, the respondent filed a charge sheet against them and the first accused for the offences under Sections 147, 406, 498A, 343, 307, 420 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 149 I.P.C. 3. The petitioners have filed the above the Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 2007 mainly on the ground that no part of cause of action for registering the case in Cr.No.6 of 2007 arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police station. 4. The defacto complainant Smt.S.Archana lodged a complaint against her husband-first accused, in-laws (A2 and A3), sister-in-law (A4), sister-in-laws husband (A5), A6sister of A2 and A7-father of A5 alleging cruelty, harassment, dowry demand, attempt to murder her, misappropriation of gold jewellery, cheating etc. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent registered a case in Cr.No.6 of 2007 and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed as aforesaid. 5. A perusal of the charge sheet, prima facie, shows that, there are allegations constituting the commission of the aforesaid offences and totally sixteen witnesses have been cited. 6. Mr. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent registered a case in Cr.No.6 of 2007 and after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed as aforesaid. 5. A perusal of the charge sheet, prima facie, shows that, there are allegations constituting the commission of the aforesaid offences and totally sixteen witnesses have been cited. 6. Mr. A. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused took place at Palani and the parents of A1, namely, A2 and A3 are living at Palani whereas the parents of the defacto complainant were living at Madurai and after the marriage, the defacto complainant and her husband-A1, set up their matrimonial home at Coimbatore and they were living there; the perusal of the allegations contained in the first information report as well as the statement of witnesses recorded in the course of investigation show that if at all any offences have been committed, the same should have been committed at Coimbatore and not within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police at Kancheepuram and hence, the respondent ought not to have registered a case and investigated the same and the charge sheet ought not to have been filed before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram. 7. The learned Senior Counsel feebly submitted that as evidenced by the receipt, dated 12. 2006 the jewellery belonging to the defacto complainant were returned back by the first petitioner herein at Madurai and the same have been received and acknowledged by the father of the defacto complainant which itself show that the allegations made against the petitioners are false. 8. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as far as the third petitioner is concerned, she is working as an Assistant Professor with Jubilee College of Nursing at Chalakudy in the State of Kerala. The fourth petitioner, who is the husband of the third petitioner, is also living at Kerala, the fifth petitioner is a resident of Karnataka State and the sixth petitioner is a resident of Palani Taluk and only with a view to harass them, they have been falsely implicated in the case filed by the defacto complainant. 9. The fourth petitioner, who is the husband of the third petitioner, is also living at Kerala, the fifth petitioner is a resident of Karnataka State and the sixth petitioner is a resident of Palani Taluk and only with a view to harass them, they have been falsely implicated in the case filed by the defacto complainant. 9. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that to confer jurisdiction on the respondent, the respondent recorded the further statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, wherein it is stated that as if A2 to A5 came to Kancheepuram on 11. 2007 and threatened the defacto complainant to put her signature in a stamp paper. 10. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even in their further statements, it is not stated that A6 and A7 came to Kancheepuram. In support of the above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134 (Y. Abraham Ajith And Others V. Inspector Of Police, Chennai And Another). In the said decision, in paragraphs 11 and 19, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "11. A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined by this Court in Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee. There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 I.P.C. On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demands were made earlier, the husband of the complainant went to the place where the complainant was residing and had assaulted her. This Court held in that factual background that clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present case the factual position is different and the complainant herself left the house of the husband on 14. 1997 on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied. "19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. "19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed." 11. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision of a learned Judge of this Court reported in (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 394 (H. Mohamed Ibrahim Kaleel and Others v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station and Another). 12. In that case, a complaint alleging dowry torture was filed by the wife at Pudukottai and the husband questioned the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai to decide the alleged culpability of the accused on the ground that the demand for dowry alleged to have taken place at Tiruchirappalli. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai dismissed the Crl.M.P. on the ground that the wife had left her marital house and was living with her parents in Pudukottai. The learned Judge on facts found that it was specifically stated in the complaint that dowry torture took place at Tiruchirappalli and hence, the concerned court at Tiruchirappalli, would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was set aside. 13. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in this case also, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police at Kancheepuram and therefore, applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, all further proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. .14. Countering the said submissions, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Govt. .14. Countering the said submissions, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that a perusal of the first information report and the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation in Cr.No.6 of 2007 shows that there are serious allegations against the petitioners herein and the first accused which reveal the commission of cognizable offences and only after collecting all necessary materials during the course of investigation, the respondent has filed the charge sheet and the same has been taken on file as P.R.C.No.18 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram. 15. The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) drew the attention of this court to the further statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded on 20.6.2007 by the respondent and pointed out that on 11. 2007 at 3.00 p.m., A2 to A5, viz., the petitioners 1 to 4 went to Kancheepuram, where the defacto complainant was residing with her parents and threatened the defacto complainant to affix her signature in a stamp paper and when she refused to comply with their demand, they are alleged to have criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and her parents and as such when part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police, it is futile on the part of the petitioners to contend that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police. 16. The learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) further submitted that very serious allegations have been made against all the accused by the defacto complainant and her parents and other witnesses also supported their case as seen from the statements recorded during the course of investigation and as such, there is absolutely no ground for quashing the proceedings. 17. I have considered the said submissions made on either side and perused all the materials available on record. 18. A perusal of the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation shows that there are allegations against all the petitioners herein and the first accused which do reveal the commission of cognizable offences for which they have been charge sheeted and therefore, I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel in this regard. .19. .19. As far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the respondent police is concerned, the same is also to be rejected, since, as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate in their further statements, the defacto complainant and her father have categorically stated about the visit of A2 to A5 to their house at Kancheepuram at 3.00 p.m. on 11. 2007, on which date, it is alleged that they threatened the defacto complainant to affix her signature in a stamp paper and threatened to do away with the entire family of the defacto complainant. When there are serious allegations both in the statements of the witnesses recorded at the first instance and in the further statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is not the function of this court, at this stage to go into the correctness or otherwise of the same. 20. It has to be pointed out that it is not possible for this court to scrutinize the materials collected by the respondent police and to come to a conclusion one way or the other at this stage. 21. The decision reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134 is not applicable to the facts of this case, as in that case, on facts it was found that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate and only on that ground the proceedings were quashed. But in this case, this Court has found that part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police and therefore, the respondent has got jurisdiction to register a case and investigate the same and file the charge sheet. 22. In the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in paragraph 11, the Apex Court has observed as under: "11. A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined by this Court in Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee. There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 323 I.P.C. On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demands were made earlier, the husband of the complainant went to the place where the complainant was residing and had assaulted her. This Court held in that factual background that clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. This Court held in that factual background that clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present case the factual position is different and the complainant herself left the house of the husband on 14. 1997 on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied." 23. The aforesaid passage shows that under Section 178(c) Cr.P.C. if a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of a court, that court has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 24. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1999) 8 Scc 728 (Satvinder Kaur V. State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Another). In that decision, the Apex Court after elaborately considering the provisions contained in Sections 154, 156, 162, 177, 178 and 482 Cr.P.C. and after taking note of a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, has held as under:- “15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed a grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the function of the courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station officer of a particular police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section 178(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate. The High Court has completely overlooked the said embargo when it entertained the petition of Respondent 2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.” (Underlining supplied) 25. Thus, it is settled position of law that where the alleged offence consist of several acts done in different local areas, such offences can be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, when the allegations contained in the complaint and in the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation reveal that the petitioners herein and the first accused have committed several acts at different places including Kancheepuram, the respondent police have got territorial jurisdiction to register the case, investigate the same and file the final report. 26. Further, as Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate, the contentions put forth by the petitioners cannot be countenanced and on that ground also the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above Crl.O.P. Accordingly, the above Crl.O.P. fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.