JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 20/2012 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 complainant filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur on 20.2.2011 against as many as 11 persons including the petitioners. The complaint was filed for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 I.P.C. The allegation levelled in the complaint was that the complainant's marriage was solemnised with the petitioner No. 1 Mahaveer Mehta at Kadur, District Chikkamagaluru (Karnataka) on 30.7.2007. The complainant has alleged that after her marriage, she lived with all the accused in the joint family. She further alleged that all her sister-in-laws (Nanads) were married but most of them used to live at the father's house. She alleged that soon after her marriage, the accused started taunting her on count of demand of dowry. She further alleged that she was assaulted on numerous occasions due to which she received injuries. Her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law took away all her valuables, ornaments and money which was given to her as gift at the time of the marriage. She further alleged that a few days after the marriage, she came to know that her husband was not interested in relations with females but was inclined towards having homosexual relations wit males. When she tried to divert her husband from the said tendency, she was beaten. On 23.7.2007 when she was going in the market with her husband, at that time a friend of her husband named Shibu met them and kissed her husband on the lips. On this, the Police personnel standing nearby took her husband to the Police Station from where he was released on apologizing. When the complainant reached her home and tried to divert her husband from his perverted behaviour, he insisted upon continuing his homosexual activities and asked the complainant to divorce him. She further alleged that in December 2009 when she came to her fathers house, her husband Mahaveer came there and assaulted her for the demand of half kilogram of gold. On 13.5.2010 the accused conspired together and pressurised the complainant to sign a blank stamp paper. She further alleged that in December 2009 when she came to her fathers house, her husband Mahaveer came there and assaulted her for the demand of half kilogram of gold. On 13.5.2010 the accused conspired together and pressurised the complainant to sign a blank stamp paper. When the complainant refused, she was assaulted and was not given anything to eat for two days. She gave a call to her father but still the accused presisted that till the papers were not signed by the complainant and her father, the complainant would not be permitted to leave. All the accused assaulted the complainant in presence of her father, where after, her father went to the Police Station and ultimately she was permitted to return back to Jodhpur. She further mentioned in the complaint that she was taunted as being sterile. Her husband tried to force her to have relations with his male friends and upon objection being made, she was beaten. She also mentioned in the complaint that her husband tried to record her video clips in indecent situations. She has also alleged that on 9.11.2009 the accused came to Jodhpur and told her father that the complainant should divorce Mahaveer and that she would not be taken back to the marital home. On 10.12.2011 and 15.12.2011 the accused allegedly repeated the demand of divorce and also offered money for accepting the proposal of divorce but the complainant's father did not accede to the said proposal. It is the specific case of the complainant that her father-in-law told her father that Mahaveer was not interested in keeping the complainant with him and that they should accept some white money and some unaccounted sum of money and agree to the divorce. In Para No. 14 of the complaint it has been mentioned that certain talks between the complainant's father and the father-in-law Were recorded wherein in it has been mentioned that the accused are not desirous of keeping the complainant in their home and were pressurising her for divorce. The complainant also mentioned that she was turned out of the matrimonial home on count of demand of dowry and because of the homosexual relations of her husband. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur for investigation, where F.I.R. No. 20/2012 was registered and investigation commenced. 3. The complainant also mentioned that she was turned out of the matrimonial home on count of demand of dowry and because of the homosexual relations of her husband. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur for investigation, where F.I.R. No. 20/2012 was registered and investigation commenced. 3. The petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the proceedings of the F.I.R. as amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Ms. Vandana Bhansali learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that ex facie the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence whatsoever so as to permit the investigation thereof. She further contended that even if the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant are considered to be true as such, then also, officers of the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur do not have any jurisdiction to investigate the case because none of the cause of action for registering the case has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mahilal Police Station, Jodhpur and therefore, the F.I.R. impugned cannot be investigated by the said Police Station. She placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 and Manish Ratan & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Anr., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 262 and prayed that the proceedings of the F.I.R. impugned be quashed in entirety. 5. Per Contra, Shri S.P. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer have vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was contended that though the marriage of the complainant has taken place at Kadur, Karanataka and the alleged facts of physical cruelty were also committed upon the complainant at that place but, they submitted that in view of the fact that the accused are alleged to have come to Jodhpur in November 2011 and have pressurised the complainant's father for forcing the complainant to agree to divorce at Jodhpur, therefore, the part of the cause of action has also accrued at Jodhpur and therefore, the F.I.R. has been rightly registered by the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur. 6. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the complaint as well as the case diary. 7. From a perusal of the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is not in dispute that apart from a single incident of November 2011, none of other acts of the accused, which can be said to be constituting any offence in relation whereto the F.I.R. has been registered were committed in the territorial jurisdiction of he Mahila Police Station Jodhpur. The only act of the accused in November 2011 in relation whereto, the argument has been advanced that jurisdiction vests at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur is the alleged act of the accused in forcing the complainant's father to make the complainant to agree for a divorce. Even if the said allegation is accepted as true then also, this Court has to consider as to whether the said act by itself can constitute an offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Section 498A of the I.P.C. reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.For the purpose of this section," cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 8. Considering the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint and her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in light of the aforesaid decision this Court is of the firm opinion that the incident of November 2011, can by no stretch of imagination fall within any of the categories of the offence defined under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The alleged of the accused party to pressurise the complainant's father to make her agree for a divorce would not fall within an act of cruelty either physical or mental as defined under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The F.I.R. itself mentions that the accused offered to settle the issue and asked the complainant's father to make her agree for the divorce through a financial settlement. Such an act by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an act of cruelty. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC (Suppl.) 864 , considered the concept of cruelty as defined in Section 498A and observed as under: "It was fairly agreed at bar that the aforesaid F.I.R. was filed by Respondent No. 2 with the intention of making out a prima facie case of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet, which was filed by the police was under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As to whether or not in the F.I.R. filed and in the charge sheet a case of Section 498A I.P.C. is made out or not is an issue, which is required to be answered in this appeal. Section 498A of the I.P.C. reads as follows: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand". 21. In the light of the aforesaid language used in the section, the provision would be applicable only to such a case where the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects the said woman to cruelty. When the ingredients of the aforesaid section are present in a particular case, in that event the person concerned against whom the offence is alleged would be tried in accordance with law in a trial instituted against him and if found guilty the accused would be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The said section contains an explanation, which defines "cruelty" as understood under Section 498A I.P.C. In order to understand the meaning of the expression 'cruelty' as envisaged under Section 498A, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of woman which is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman. 22. When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the F.I.R. and. the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the F.I.R. or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation (a). 22. When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the F.I.R. and. the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the F.I.R. or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation (a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under Explanation (a) of Section 498A I.P.C. are not at all mentioned either in F.I.R. or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A I.P.C. is clearly not attracted in the present case. 23. We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under Explanation (b) of Section 498A of I.P.C. constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in Explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the F.I.R. and charge sheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty. 24. The marriage between the appellant and Respondent No. 2 was performed on 23.10.1997 when it is alleged that Rs. 5 lakhs was given by the parents of Respondent No. 2 to the family of appellant as dowry. The F.I.R. was filed in the month of April, 2002 and in the said F.I.R. there is no allegation that subsequent thereto any harassment was made by the appellant with a view to coercing her or any person related to Respondent No. 2 to meet any unlawful demand or any property. 25. The F.I.R. was filed in the month of April, 2002 and in the said F.I.R. there is no allegation that subsequent thereto any harassment was made by the appellant with a view to coercing her or any person related to Respondent No. 2 to meet any unlawful demand or any property. 25. In that view of the matter neither Explanation (a) nor Explanation (b) of Section 498 A of I.P.C. is attracted in the present case. It is crystal clear that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the charge sheet there is any ingredient of Section 498A I.P.C., which could prima facie constitute a case of cruelty as defined in that section. 26. It is thus established that on a reading of the F.I.R. as also the charge sheet filed against the appellant no case under Section 498A is made out on the face of the record, and therefore, both the F.I.R. as also the charge sheet are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Clearly, the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record." Tested in the light of the interpretation of the term 'cruelty' by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that none of the acts of the accused a Jodhpur as mentioned in the F.I.R. and the investigation statements, falls within the definition of cruelty as define in Section 498A of the I.P.C. 9. Thus, as no offence has been committed in this matter within the territorial jurisdiction of the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur, it has not jurisdiction to investigate the case. 10. Resultantly, the misc. petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The F.I.R. No. 20/2012 registered at the Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur, is hereby quashed. The complaint is directed to be returned back to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate forum.Petition allowed. *******