JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.—This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Arjun Singh Bhadoriya and three Others with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 10.3.2006 filed in Case Crime No. C-15 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri and the summoning order dated 26.7.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri and the entire proceeding in case No. 1218 of 2006 State v. Dinesh Bhadoriya and Others, under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri pending in the Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri. 2. The facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2, Ram Prakash Singh Chauhan filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before C.J.M., Mainpuri against Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya and four others with the allegations that her daughter Alka was married with Dinesh Bhadoriya, resident of 82, Krishna Nagar Officers Enclave, Jhotwada, Jaipur (Rajasthan) on 9.2.2004. In the marriage sufficient gifts and dowry were given but the accused persons were not satisfied with the said dowry and started to demand a Maruti Car and when the complainant went to Jaipur to take her, they clearly told him that unless Maruti Car is provided, his daughter will not be sent with him. It is further alleged that due to non fulfillment of their said demand, the accused persons used to commit mar-peet with his daughter about which she complained to him on telephone. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith others went to Jaipur and tried to subside the matter and assured the accused persons that he will fulfill their demand after arranging the money. He also took a loan of Rs. two lakhs and paid the same to Dinesh Singh (husband) for his business purposes but thereafter, seeing that his demands are not being fulfilled and inspite of assurance given by complainant, Dinesh Singh and his family members started to harass the victim again. In the meantime, a daughter was born to Alka and on 27.11.2005, the accused sent her only in the clothes she was wearing to Mainpuri and since then she has been residing with the complainant at Mainpuri. Thereafter, Dinesh Singh also told him on telephone that unless a Maruti Car is provided, he is not ready to keep his daughter. 3. Thereafter, Dinesh Singh also told him on telephone that unless a Maruti Car is provided, he is not ready to keep his daughter. 3. The said application of the complainant was directed to be registered as FIR and hence an FIR was registered as case Crime No. C-15 of 2006 at P.S.- Kotwali, Mainpuri on 9.2.2006, under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. The said FIR was investigated by the police of Kotwali Mainpuri and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the applicants and Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya, husband of the victim. On the said charge-sheet the learned C.J.M. took cognizance and summoned the accused persons. Hence, the present petition has been filed to quash the said charge-sheet, summoning order and the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case. 4. In the petition filed on behalf of the applicants, it has been averred that applicant No. 1 is the father-in-law, applicant No. 2 is mother-in-law, applicant No. 3 is Devar of Smt. Alka and applicant No. 4 is an extremely old man aged about 70 years, retired from service, who is living in a separate house about 10 k.ms. away. The marriage of Smt. Alka Bhadoriya and Dinesh Singh was solemnized on 9.2.2004 without any dowry. After marriage Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya was keeping his wife Smt. Alka with full love and affection but immediately after marriage Smt. Alka Bhadoriya started pressurizing her husband to live separately and she did not participate in daily domestic work with her mother-in-law. In such circumstance, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 decided for a family partition between them and their sons and accordingly family partition was made, in which it was agreed that Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya, husband of Smt. Alka will be owner and in possession of a shop known as Bhadoriya Paint House situated in Khatipura Circle-Ke-Pas, Chhota Bara Road, Jaipur. Accordingly Smt. Saroj Bhadoriya (applicant No. 2), executed a registered gift-deed on 9.9.2004 in favour of his son Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya in respect of the shop, which was registered by Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 also returned to Smt. Alka her entire Stridhan and domestic articles for which Smt. Alka also executed a deed receiving the Stridhan and the articles given at the time of marriage by her father and this deed was also duly signed as witness by her father Sri Ram Prakash Singh Chauhan (complainant). Thereafter, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 also returned to Smt. Alka her entire Stridhan and domestic articles for which Smt. Alka also executed a deed receiving the Stridhan and the articles given at the time of marriage by her father and this deed was also duly signed as witness by her father Sri Ram Prakash Singh Chauhan (complainant). It is also stated that since 9.9.2004, Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya and his wife Smt. Alka Bhadoriya have been residing separately in a house situated in Mohalla Habib Marg Moti Nagar, Jaipur. The applicant No. 1 on 10.9.2004 had got a public notice published in daily newspaper “Rajasthan Patrika” informing that all the relations with his son Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya and his wife came to an end and they have been evicted from House No. 82, Krishna Colony Officers Enclave Jhotbara Jaipur, (Rajasthan). Subsequently, Smt. Alka Bhadoriya got executed a sale-deed in respect of the said shop in her favour by her husband on 15.9.2004. Thereafter, on 11.1.2005, Smt Alka in order to extract money from the applicant No. 1 and 2, filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) /Judicial Magistrate Court No. 13, Jaipur praying to direct the concerned S.O. of Police Station to lodge an FIR against the applicants for demanding dowry and harassment. On 11.1.2005, learned Magistrate directed the S.O. concerned to submit report and investigate the matter and thereafter on 15.1.2005 an FIR was lodged against the applicants at P.S. Mahila Thana North, Jaipur, which was registered as Crime No. 6 of 2005, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The concerned Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Smt. Alka and other witnesses under Sectioin 161 of Cr.P.C. and after investigation, he submitted a final report in the said case on which the A.C.J.M. Court No. 13, Jaipur issued notice to Smt. Alka but till date she has not appeared in the Court. Thereafter, on 19.1.2006, father of Smt. Alka Bhadoriya filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants and Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya in the Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri on false and vague allegations in respect of the same occurrence alleged to be committed in Jaipur (Rajasthan), on which an FIR was directed to be registered and thereafter investigation was made and charge-sheet was submitted by the police before C.J.M., Mainpuri (which is subject-matter of the present petition). 5. In counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, several facts about marriage of Alka Bhadoriya with Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya and relations of the applicants with her have been admitted while several other facts have been denied. The filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Smt. Alka Bhadoriya on 11.1.2005 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) /Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 13, Jaipur and order of the Court, directing the Station Officer concerned to submit the report and investigate the matter, investigation of the matter by Investigating Officer after registering the case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and thereafter submitting of the final report, all these facts have not been denied and it is stated that she (Smt. Alka Bhadoriya) has not received any notice issued by the Jaipur Court against the said final report submitted in the case lodged by her. 6. In counter-affidavit, it is also stated that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by the applicants from Alka Bhadoriya and she was tortured physically and mentally. It is also stated that another FIR has been lodged for another incident, hence, it was not barred by law. It is also stated that even before their marriage when the applicants came to the complainant’s house at Mainpuri in Goad-bharai (engagement) ceremony, a Maruti Car was demanded as an essential requirement for marriage and in the marriage, the said demand was repeated and as such the Court at Mainpuri has jurisdiction to pass order and take cognizance against the applicants. In rejoinder-affidavit, the contents of the petition have been reiterated. 7. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Alkesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. In rejoinder-affidavit, the contents of the petition have been reiterated. 7. Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Alkesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Smt. Alka Bhadoriya daughter of the complainant Ram Prakash Chauhan (opposite party No. 2) had already filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate at Jaipur (Rajasthan) against the applicants for demand of dowry, torture and harassment, in which after investigation, a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer and now the present FIR got lodged by her father Ram Prakash Chauhan (opposite party No. 2) at Police Station- Kotwali, Mainpuri (U.P.) on similar facts and regarding the incidents alleged to have taken place at Jaipur is not maintainable and the order taking cognizance by C.J.M., Mainpuri on the charge-sheet submitted by police after investigation is without jurisdiction as regarding the incident alleged to have taken place at Jaipur (Rajasthan), the Court of CJM at Mainpuri (U.P.) has no jurisdiction to enquire into or try the said offences alleged to have committed at Jaipur. He placed reliance upon a verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri.) 336 and another verdict of Hon’ble Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector Of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 SCC (Cri) 2134. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant- opposite party No. 2 before the C.J.M., Mainpuri, regarding another incident, hence, it was not barred by law. It is also argued that demand of dowry was a continuing offence and in relation to said demand, daughter of the complainant was tortured and harassed, hence, Mainpuri Court has jurisdiction as she was turned out of the house and was residing in Mainpuri alongwith her parents. He also submitted that at the time of marriage itself, the demand of Maruti Car was made, which took place at Mainpuri. Hence, the Court at Mainpuri has jurisdiction to try the same. 9. He also submitted that at the time of marriage itself, the demand of Maruti Car was made, which took place at Mainpuri. Hence, the Court at Mainpuri has jurisdiction to try the same. 9. I have considered the said arguments advanced on behalf of the parties’ counsel and case laws as referred to above by the learned counsel for the applicants. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its verdict given in Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another (supra) has held that offence cannot be said to be continuing one only because complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial home and stayed with her parents. In the said matter the facts were that the father of the victim got lodged a complaint with police at Jabalpur alleging that the appellants have been ill-treating his daughter and demanding dowry. Subsequently the victim also got lodged an FIR alleging that her husband and in-laws ill-treated her so much that she had to leave the matrimonial home and went to live with her parents at Datia. It was held that in view of Section 177 Cr.P.C., which ordains that offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, the offence in question must be inquired into and tried by Court at Jabalpur and not by Court at Datia where no part of cause of action arose. 10. In another verdict Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to held that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, the said rule is subject to several exceptions but no such exception is applicable to the case at hand. It was held that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with matter as no part of cause of action for initiation of proceeding against the accused arose within his local jurisdiction. The facts of the said case were that complaint was filed under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961 against husband and his relations by the wife at Chennai where she came to stay after leaving her husband’s house which was situated in Nagercoil, wherein all the offences were alleged to have taken place at Nagercoil. The facts of the said case were that complaint was filed under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961 against husband and his relations by the wife at Chennai where she came to stay after leaving her husband’s house which was situated in Nagercoil, wherein all the offences were alleged to have taken place at Nagercoil. It was observed that the said offences are not continuing ones. No part of cause of action arose at Chennai. Considering Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate at Chennai had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and proceedings were therefore quashed. 11. Now coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly the FIR was earlier got lodged by Smt. Alka Bhadoriya daughter of opposite party No. 2 against the applicants and two others, excluding her husband Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya, which was registered as case crime No. 6 of 2005 on 15.1.2005, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, with the allegations that her marriage took place on 9.2.2004 with Sri Dinesh Bhadoriya son of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, in which huge amount was given as dowry but when she came for the first time to Jaipur as newly bride, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 started torturing and misbehaving with her for bringing less dowry and when after one month she was going to her parent’s house, she was allowed to go on the condition that she will be kept only if she brings Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. It was also alleged that the accused No. 1 had also tried to outrage her modesty but she did not lodge the report for the same when he tendered a written apology. It is also alleged that certain articles including her jewelery were taken away by the accused persons and the same are in their possession. It is also alleged that ultimately on 9.9.2004, the complainant (Smt. Alka) and her husband were thrown out from the house and her entire Stridhan has been forcibly kept detained by the accused persons. Thereafter, she went to Moti Nagar Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, where she is residing in the house of her uncle Rajpal Singh since 9.9.2004. It is also alleged that on 12.12.2004, the accused persons came there and committed mar-peet with her, abused her and again demanded dowry. 12. Thereafter, she went to Moti Nagar Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, where she is residing in the house of her uncle Rajpal Singh since 9.9.2004. It is also alleged that on 12.12.2004, the accused persons came there and committed mar-peet with her, abused her and again demanded dowry. 12. The said matter was investigated by the police of police Station Mahila Thana, Uttar Jaipur City and after investigation, a final report dated 15.2.2005 was submitted stating therein that the entire allegations were found to be incorrect as the complainant (Smt. Alka Bhadoriya) wanted to live with her husband separately from her in-laws. Her husband Dinesh Bhadoriya was also owner of a firm named Paint House but as he was not doing any labour, hence, could not earn income from the said shop and consequently he asked his father for money and when his father refused to do so, he put the complainant ahead in the picture and in the garb of the dowry case, he started to blackmail his father. 13. Now the FIR has been got lodged by opposite party No. 2 Ram Prakash Singh Chauhan, father of Smt. Alka Bhadoriya, which was registered as Case Crime No. C-15 of 2006 on 9.2.2006 at P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri against the applicants and Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya, husband of Smt. Alka Bhadoriya. In this FIR, it has been alleged by the complainant that marriage of his daughter Alka was solemnized with Dinesh Bhadoriya, resident of Jaipur (Rajasthan) on 9.2.2004, but after marriage Dinesh Singh Bhadoriya and his family members were not satisfied with the gifts and dowry and started demanding a Maruti Car and when the complainant went to take his daughter from Jaipur, they clearly told him that unless Maruti Car is provided, they will not send his daughter. Thereafter, they started committing mar-peet in pursuance to their demand of dowry, which was informed him by his daughter on telephone. Thereafter, the complainant went to Jaipur and tried to subside the matter with Dinesh Singh and others and assured them that he will fulfill their demand and also took a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs and provided it to Dinesh Singh for doing business, but thereafter they again started to repeat their said demand and ultimately on 27.11.2005 Alka (daughter of the complainant) was sent to Mainpuri in the clothes that she was wearing and since then she is residing at Mainpuri. 2 lakhs and provided it to Dinesh Singh for doing business, but thereafter they again started to repeat their said demand and ultimately on 27.11.2005 Alka (daughter of the complainant) was sent to Mainpuri in the clothes that she was wearing and since then she is residing at Mainpuri. On perusal of the entire allegations made in the aforesaid FIR, it is apparent that none of the incidents as alleged in the said FIR have taken place at Mainpuri and all the alleged incidents of demand of dowry, committing mar-peet etc. are said to have taken place at Jaipur and the only date mentioned is 27.11.2005, on which date it is alleged that the daughter of the complainant was sent to Mainpuri in the clothes that she was wearing and since then she is residing at Mainpuri. 14. Considering the entire contents as stated in the FIR, even if is taken as it is, none of the incident is alleged to have taken place at Mainpuri. Moreover, Smt. Alka, daughter of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 had already got an FIR lodged against the applicants, excluding her husband Dinesh Kumar Bhadoriya, at Jaipur and after investigation in the matter, a final report was submitted before the concerned Magistrate in which notices were also issued to her. Now with almost similar facts the present FIR has been got lodged at P.S. Kotwali, Mainpuri including one additional incident said to have taken place on 27.11.2005 about which it is alleged that on that date Smt. Alka was sent to Mainpuri by the applicants only in the clothes that she was wearing and since then she is residing at Mainpuri. Thus, from the said allegation, it cannot be said that the incident had taken place at Mainpuri or it was a continuing offence as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in its verdict Manish Ratan and others v. State of M.P. and another (supra). 15. In view of the aforesaid consideration, in my opinion, the Court at Mainpuri has no jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offences which are alleged to have committed at Jaipur. 15. In view of the aforesaid consideration, in my opinion, the Court at Mainpuri has no jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offences which are alleged to have committed at Jaipur. Moreover, the FIR had already been lodged by Smt. Alka Bhadoriya at Jaipur regarding torture, ill-treatment and demand of dowry against the applicants, in which final report has been submitted by the police after investigation and the notices have been issued to her by the concerned Magistrate and the matter is still pending there. Hence, the proceedings before the Court of C.J.M., Mainpuri are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, which are liable to be quashed and this application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed and further proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 10.3.2006 submitted in Case Crime No. C-15 of 2005, under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri and summoning order dated 26.7.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri and the entire proceedings in case No. 1218 of 2006 State v. Dinesh Bhadoriya and others, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act pending before C.J.M., Mainpuri are hereby quashed. However, the complainant-opposite party No. 2 may redress his grievance, if he so chooses, before appropriate Court. ——————