JUDGMENT DHARAM VEER, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available in file. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of criminal case no.6244 of 2008 (case crime no.96 of 2008), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Seema Chamoli lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Basant Vihar on 4.9.2008 against her husband and the present applicants with the allegations that she got married to co-accused Dr. Sunil Kumar Chamoli on 1.5.2005 and in this marriage her parents have spent a lot of money upon dowry. However, right from the marriage, present applicants and her husband were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and on every available opportunity they used to say that co-accused Sunil Kumar Chamoli (husband) is a Doctor and the dowry given in the marriage is not proportionate to their standard and they asked to bring ` 15.00 lacs from her father. It is further stated that on 4.5.2005 the respondent no.2 along with the applicants and her husband visited her parental house where these accused demanded ` 15.00 lacs from her parents. On this, her father gave ` 2.50 lacs to them. 2. Thereafter, she along with her husband came to Lucknow where also her husband tortured her for the demand of aforesaid money. It is further alleged that on 27.10.2005 the applicant came to her parental house and again demanded 12.50 lacs from her father. Thereafter on the persuasion of her parents, her husband taken her to Australia on 30.1.2006 where also her husband committed her harassment for dowry and ultimately ousted her from the house. Thereafter she came to her in-laws house at Haridwar and told the entire incident to the applicants but they stand in support of co-accused Sunil Kumar Chamoli (husband of respondent no.2). The applicants too ousted her from the house for the demand of ` 12.50 lacs whereupon she came to her parental house at Dehradun. With these averments, the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicants and her husband (co-accused). The applicants too ousted her from the house for the demand of ` 12.50 lacs whereupon she came to her parental house at Dehradun. With these averments, the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicants and her husband (co-accused). After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigation and on completion of investigation, the I.O. filed the charge sheet against the applicants-accused and co-accused in the court. 3. After receiving the charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, vide order dated 17.11.2008, took cognizance of the offence and also summoned the applicants and subsequently criminal proceedings were initiated against them. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 17.11.2008, the applicants have preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. 4. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant nos.1 and 2 submitted that the cause of action has taken place in Australia, as such the court at Dehradun has no jurisdiction to try the case and therefore the proceedings before the Dehradun court are liable to be quashed. Before further discussion, it would be pertinent to mention Section 178 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- “178. Place of inquiry or trial.-a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area.” The contents of the first information report disclose that the alleged harassment has taken place in different places viz. Dehradun, Lucknow, Australia and Haridwar. Firstly, after the marriage, when the respondent no.2 went to her matrimonial house in Haridwar she was harassed by the present applicants for the demand of dowry and they also made a demand of ` 15.00 lacs from her. Then on 4.5.2005 when the respondent no.2 along with the applicants visited her parental house in Dehradun there again the applicants made the same demand. Thereafter she went to Lucknow and then to Australia with her husband where also she was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of dowry and ultimately she was ousted by her husband. Then on 4.5.2005 when the respondent no.2 along with the applicants visited her parental house in Dehradun there again the applicants made the same demand. Thereafter she went to Lucknow and then to Australia with her husband where also she was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of dowry and ultimately she was ousted by her husband. Then on 30.6.2008 she came to her in-laws’ house in Haridwar where again the same harassment was committed upon her by the applicants and she was ousted by the applicants from her matrimonial house at Haridwar also. Thereafter, when respondent no.2 came to her parental house at Dehradun she lodged the report of the said incident. From the above facts, it is clear that the harassment was committed upon her by the applicants at Haridwar and Dehradun and since the alleged harassment has also taken place at Dehradun also, thus, as per above-quoted section, Dehradun court is fully competent to try the case. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the contents of First Information Report and other material available on record, I am of the view that prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. 7. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the first information report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of the investigation conducted by the I.O. and the statement recorded during investigation and other papers available on record, I am of the view that the applicants have rightly been summoned by the trial court and the criminal proceedings are accordingly rightly initiated against them. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. 8. At this juncture, Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant nos.3 and 4 stated that she does not want press her petition and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 9. In view of the above statement, the petition pertaining to petitioner nos.3 and 4 is dismissed as not pressed with the observation that if the petitioner nos.3 and 4, namely, Smt. Meena Pandey and Madhu Bhushan Pandey are arrested or surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed without unreasonable delay. 10. However, so far as the rest of petitioners i.e. petitioner no.1 Ram Chamoli and petitioner no.2 Smt. Vimla Chamoli are concerned, their petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 11. Interim order dated 21.1.2009 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.)28.9.2010 RG