Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No. 53/2009 registered at the Police Station, Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar against them for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 21.5.2009 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Rajendra Soni on 20.2.1994 at Sri Ganganagar and at the time of marriage, dowry articles were handed over to her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. From the wed-lock, two sons Vijay alias Banti and Mohit were born. It was alleged that the accused were not satisfied with the amount of Rs. 51,000/- given in the "Thali" at the time of the marriage and expressed their desire for a further sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- and she was harassed on this count. It was also alleged that they were also not satisfied with the amount of Rs. 50,000/- given on the "Chuchak" ceremonies of both the children. It was further alleged that her husband, the petitioner No.1 was having illicit relations with one Sunita and she was threatened that if a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is given then only the petitioner No.1 would terminate his relations with Sunita. the complainant and her uncle Jagdish managed to give Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused but being dissatisfied with the amount, complainant's husband, in connivance with other accused, filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Jodhpur. It has been alleged that the complainant's father-in-law got her signatures appended on some blank stamp papers. She was not allowed to meet her children. 3. An application was filed on 24.4.2009 by the complainant's father before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur and on interference being made by the Superintendent of Police, she and her children were brought to Sri Ganganagar. On 17.5.2009, the complainant, her father and uncle Jagdish made attempts for reconciliation and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as demanded by the accused, was also given to them but to no avail. The categorical allegation in the complaint is that after the marriage, the complainant, her husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 all resided together at Jodhpur whilst petitioner No.4, who was married, used to reside at Delhi but used to frequently come to Jodhpur. 4. 3,00,000/-, as demanded by the accused, was also given to them but to no avail. The categorical allegation in the complaint is that after the marriage, the complainant, her husband and petitioners No.2 and 3 all resided together at Jodhpur whilst petitioner No.4, who was married, used to reside at Delhi but used to frequently come to Jodhpur. 4. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., upon which a First Information Report being FIR No. 53/2009 was registered at the Women Police Station, Sri Ganganagar against the petitioners. 5. The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners accused seeking quashing of the above-mentioned FIR. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case even if the highest allegations of the complainant are accepted as being true, then too the prosecution of the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 is absolutely unjustified in this case. He also submits that even if the allegations are taken to be true then also the offences, if any, have not been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Magistrate located at Sri Ganganagar and, therefore, the investigation of the FIR cannot be permitted to be conducted by the Women Police Station, Sri Ganganagar. As a consequence, it is submitted that the FIR impugned deserves to be quashed in its entirety. It is argued that the marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2 with the petitioner No.1 was solemnized way back in the year 1994 and that the highest allegation of the complainant is to the extent that her husband (petitioner No.1) was having illicit relations with a girl namely Sunita and that as a result of the illicit relations, he started harassing he complainant. Even if the said allegation is considered to be true then too the prosecution of the petitioner No.1 Rajendra Soni cannot be justified in this case. He submits that the only cause of this rift between the spouses in this case is the unfounded suspicion of the complainant regarding her husband having developed illicit relations with another girl namely Sunita and because of this suspicion, the complainant called her father to Jodhpur. Her father submitted a written application to the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur on 24.4.2009 and thereafter she was taken back to Sri Ganganagar with her children and then, with an oblique motive, the FIR has been filed at Sri Ganganagar. Her father submitted a written application to the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur on 24.4.2009 and thereafter she was taken back to Sri Ganganagar with her children and then, with an oblique motive, the FIR has been filed at Sri Ganganagar. He submits that the mala fide intention of the complainant is reflected from the fact that she has even, by making false assertions, implicated even the petitioner No.4 Smt. Rajkumari, who is her married sister-in-law residing at Delhi. The petitioner No.4 resides at Delhi and is having two sons aged about 24 and 22 years. He submits that there is no likelihood that the petitioner No.4 could have possibly indulged in the harassment of the complainant. He further submits that despite the fact that the complainant's husband, i.e. petitioner No.1, allegedly stopped having any interaction with the complainant, the petitioners No.2 and 3 continued to maintain the complainant and she was living happily with them. However, her father came to Jodhpur and without any justification filed a report before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur on 24.4.2009 making an allegation that the complainant was illegally detained by these two petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of proceedings upon the complaint dated 24.4.2009 filed by Shri Niranjan Lal, the complainant's father, wherein he has mentioned that his daughter was having matrimonial disputes with her husband for the last five years and that she was detained by her in-laws at Jodhpur. 7. The complainant herself was examined in the proceedings of the complaint on 24.4.2009 and in this statement she has stated that the disputes arose between her and her husband because of her husband's illicit relations with another lady and when she informed her in-laws about this adulterous behaviour of her husband, they tried to mediate and settle the things. Thereafter she started feeling unwell and went to live with her parents at Sri Ganganagar. During this period, her son Mohit was with her whilst the other son stayed with his grand-parents. Thereafter she came back to her marital home. She further stated that for the last about 2½ to three years, her husband had stopped coming to the matrimonial home because of his adulterous relations with other lady. She specifically stated that she and her children were being maintained by her in-laws. Thereafter she came back to her marital home. She further stated that for the last about 2½ to three years, her husband had stopped coming to the matrimonial home because of his adulterous relations with other lady. She specifically stated that she and her children were being maintained by her in-laws. She also stated that her husband had filed a divorce petition against her, in which the date fixed was 10.4.2009. She specifically stated that she did not desire to divorce her husband and was willing to carry on living in her marital home. She further stated that she was desirous of going to her father's house during her children's academic vacation but her father-in-law was reticent in this regard and had threatened her that she would not be permitted to come back if she left the house. She further stated that she was desirous of going to her father's house during her children's academic vacation but her father-in-law was reticent in this regard and had threatened her that she would not be permitted to come back if she left the house. The relevant portion of her statement in this regard in quoted hereinbelow: ^^bl ij eSaus ;g ckr esjs lkl lqlj dks crkbZ FkhA esjs }kjk fojks/k djus ij esjs ifr esjs lkFk ekjihV djus yxkA ;g ckr eSaus esjs ekrk firk dks Hkh crkbZ rks mUgksaus eq>s le>k;k fd lc dqN fBd gks tk,sxkA blh njfe;ku esjh rch;r [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k esjs llqjky okyksa us eq>s esjs ihgj igqapk fn;kA eSa djhc ,d o"kZ rd eSa esjs ihgj esa eksfgr ds lkFk jgha fot; vius nknk nknh ds ikl gh jgkA fQj esjs lqlj us esjs ikrk dks VsfyQksu dj eq>s tks/kiqj Hkstus ds fy, dgk rFkk esjs lqlj us Qksu ij esjs ikik dks dgk Fkk fd rqEgkjh yM+dh ds tks/kiqj vius ij esjk yM+dk ?kj NksM+dj ckgj pyk tk,sxkA rqEgkjh yM+dh dks esjs /kj ij gh esjs ikl jguk iM+sxkA rc esjs ikik eq>s tks/kiqj NksM+dj pys x;sA esjs ifr dHkh 2 jkr ds le; ?kj ij vkrs FksA fiNys djhc 2-1/2 - 3 o"kZ ls esjs ifr dk ?kj ij vkuk fcYdqy ugha gSA tks/kiqj esa dgk jgrs gS eq>s ekyqe ugha gSA eSaus ,slk lquk gS fd esjs ifr ,d lqfurk uke dh yM+dh ds lkFk ?kwers fQjrs gSA esjs o esjs cPpksa dh ijofj'k esjs lkl lqlj djrs gSaA vkt ls djhc nks o"kZ igys esjs HkkbZ dh 'kknh gksus ls esjk HkkbZ eq>s ihgj ysdj x;k FkkA ikap fnu fcrus ds i'pkr~ eSa vius lqljky vk xbZA rHkh ls eSa vius lqljky esa gwaA esjs ifr us esjs f[kykQ rykd dk dsl djok j[kk gSA ftldh rkjh[k is'kh 10-4-2009 dks FkhA ftl ij esjs pkpk th Jh lq'khy dqekj tks tks/kiqj esa gh jgrs gSa tks dgk jgrs gSa eq>s irk ugha gSaA eSa esjs ifr ls rykd ysuk ugha pkgrh gwa vius lqljky esa gh jguk pkgrh gwaA cPpksa dh Ldwy dh NqfV~V;ka gksus ds dkj.k vius ihgj ifjokj okyksa ls feyus ds fy, tkuk pkgrh gwaA exj esjs lqlj ;g dgrs gSa fd vxj rw vius ihgj tkuk pkgrh gS rks okil gekjs ?kj ij er vkukA eq>s lkl lqlj ls fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gSaA esjs lkl lqlj esjs cPpksa dks esjs lkFk esjs ihgj ugha Hkstuk pkgrs gSaA eq>s fdlh us cU/kd ugha cuk;kA** 8. The statement of complainant's father was also recorded in the complaint and he also stated that his daughter was living in her matrimonial home with her in-laws while her husband had deserted her for about previous 2 to 2½ years. While leaving her matrimonial home, the complainant took her ornaments with her after giving a written intimation to the Investigating Officer of the Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur in this regard. 9. In view of these admitted facts, this Court is of the opinion that ex facie the allegations of the complainant in the impugned FIR regarding the involvement of the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 in the acts of harassing and humiliating her on account of bring less dowry cannot be accepted on their face value. Were the allegations having even a grain of truth, the complainant was free to make a disclosure in this regard when her statement was recorded by the enquiry officer during the enquiry of complaint filed by her father with the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. As mentioned above, in her statement recorded during this enquiry (supra reproduced in Hindu), she has made no such allegation, rather has stated about her corcial relations with her in-laws and the reciprocating good behaviour shown by them towards her. Not only this, even after coming back from Jodhpur to Sri Ganganagar, she waited for a period of three months before filing the complaint at the Police Station, Sri Ganganagar. 10. In the complainant's statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no specific averment regarding the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 having been entrusted with her dowry articles. That apart, she has specifically stated that her husband reused to perform the conjugal duties with her and refused to return back her "Stridhan" articles. Thus, none of the ingredients of offence under Sec. 406 IPC is ex facie made out against the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4. 11. Resultantly, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the further proceedings of the FIR, so far as the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are concerned amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed for securing the ends of justice in the light of the principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Babu & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2009 (Suppl.) SC 2087. 12. So far as the petitioner No.1, the husband of the petitioner No.1, is concerned, admitted and the highest allegations of the complainant reveal that whatever acts of cruelty, harassment etc. have been stated by the complainant in her FIR, relate to the incidents of the alleged cruelty which took place at Jodhpur. None of the acts/incidents mentioned in the complaint was committed or happened within the territorial jurisdiction of the Women Police Station, Sri Ganganagar. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the miscellaneous petition succeeds in part. The proceeding of the FIR No.53/2009, qua the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4, as amounting to an abuse of process of the Court, is hereby quashed. But at the same time, whilst upholding the FIR as regards the petitioner No.1 Rajendra Soni, the investigation file is directed to be transferred to the Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur for investigation in accordance with law. The stay petition stands disposed of.