JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in sum and substance have prayed for quashing of first information report in Biraul P.S. Case No. 8 of 2000 which was registered for the offence under Section 498A and 379 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It has been submitted by Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that neither the police of Biraul Police Station was authorized to investigate the case nor for the same offence second first information report was required to be lodged. It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 2, who was wife of petitioner No. 1 had earlier filed a case vide Kolsewadi (Kalyan) C.R. No. I-228 of 1997 on 22.12.1997 alleging therein that the petitioners had committed offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in which the Bombay Police, after investigating the case, had submitted charge-sheet. Opposite Party No. 2 again, in the year 2000, has filed the present first information report against the petitioners. It was submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the contents of first information report itself indicate that informant/complainant had alleged that the occurrence had taken place at Bombay and, as such, the police at Biraul was not authorized to register first information report. It was further submitted that for the same occurrence, two first information reports cannot be lodged. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (8) SCC 100 Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. on the point that under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, first information report can be lodged in the Police Station where occurrence had taken place and only that Court is competent to try the offender for such offence within whose territorial jurisdiction occurrence had taken place. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the point of registration of first information report twice for the same offence has relied upon a judgment reported in 2001 Cr.L.J.3329 T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala. On the aforesaid two grounds, it has been prayed that first information report and investigation in Biraul P.S. Case No. 8 of 2000 be set aside. 3. On the aforesaid two grounds, it has been prayed that first information report and investigation in Biraul P.S. Case No. 8 of 2000 be set aside. 3. The question of law which has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is not in dispute. However, the Court is of the view that unless a proceeding is pending before the Court below, this Court is not in a position to exercise power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case the petitioners have only prayed for quashing of the first information report and the investigation. It is not a case where after investigation, the police had submitted charge sheet and the Court had taken cognizance and, thereafter, proceeding was initiated against the petitioners. In absence of pendency of any proceeding before the Court below, it is not desirable to interfere with the institution of the first information report or investigation while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the matter. However, the petitioners can approach appropriate forum, if so advised, for the relief sought for in the present case. 4. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected.