Paramjeet Singh, J.— Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 21 dated 11.04.2012, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was solemnised on 17.11.2010 at Dehradun (Uttrakhand). After the marriage, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 started residing at Dehradun. Due to certain differences between the parties, respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners and others under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents and replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the reply of respondent no. 1, it is specifically stated that investigation is complete and challan has been presented on 27.06.2012 and the case is fixed for procuring the presence of petitioner no.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Ludhiana Police has no jurisdiction to register the FIR. He has further submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, the marriage was solemnized at Dehradun (Uttrakhand), the cruelty and mis-appropriation of alleged dowry articles were alleged to have taken place at Dehradun; the demand of return of the articles was also alleged to have been made at Dehradun, therefore, no cause of action whatsoever arose at Ludhiana. As such, FIR could not be entertained at Ludhiana and was required to be transferred to Dehradun. In support of this averment, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana, 2008(2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 835. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have drawn my attention to Sections 181(4) and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that in terms of Section 181(4) Cr. P. C., the cause of action partly arose at the place where the articles of dowry were/are required to be returned. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that respondent no. P. C., the cause of action partly arose at the place where the articles of dowry were/are required to be returned. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that respondent no. 2 having been pushed out of the matrimonial house at Dehradun, was left with no option but to reside at Ludhiana where the parents of respondent no. 2 are residing and they are being looked after by her. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the articles of dowry and Istridhan belonging to the respondent-wife are required to be returned to her at Ludhiana and as such, the Ludhiana Police has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by respondent no.2.Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 220 Cr. P. C. more than one offences arising out of the same transaction should be tried by the same Court and as such the case with regard to offence under Section 498A IPC could also be entertained by the same Court before whom the complaint under Section 406 IPC was filed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Yashpal Luthra Senior Professor and others versus Smt. Meera Luthra @ Meenakshi and another, 1996(2), All India Criminal Law Reporters, 264 and Gaganpreet Kaur versus Senior Superintendent of Police, U. T., Chandigarh and others, 2009(1) RCR (Crimina) 394. In addition to it, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that challan has already been presented and the case is fixed for procuring the presence of petitioner no. 2, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed before the learned Trial Court passes an order in terms of Section 190 Cr. P. C. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. Neelaveni versus State Rep. By Insp. Of Police and others, 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 457. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the respondent-wife at the time of filing of complaint was residing at Ludhiana. From the facts stated herein above, it is also evident that she had no option but to reside at Ludhiana where her parents are residing as she is alleged to have been pushed out of the matrimonial house by the petitioner-husband. Admittedly, the respondent-wife at the time of filing of complaint was residing at Ludhiana. From the facts stated herein above, it is also evident that she had no option but to reside at Ludhiana where her parents are residing as she is alleged to have been pushed out of the matrimonial house by the petitioner-husband. In terms of the provisions of Sub Section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court where any property was received or retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person, has the territorial jurisdiction to try the offences of criminal mis-appopriation or criminal breach of trust. In the present case, the articles, if any of dowry or Istridhan, are required to be returned by the accused persons to the respondent-wife at Ludhiana. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that Ludhiana Police has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent. Moreover, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 406 IPC or under Section 498A IPC in view of the allegations made in the FIR, is devoid of merits as the investigation has been completed and challan has already been presented in the Court. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.