Judgment : 1. Petitioner No. 1, Rajinder Kumar alias Munna, is the husband of respondent No. 2, Payal. They got married on 22.11.2010. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are parents of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 is his unmarried sister. Petitioner Nos. 5 & 7 are other two sisters of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 6 and 8 are their respective husbands. All the petitioners are resident of Jammu city. Respondent No. 2’s parents reside at Main Bazar, Udhampur. 2. Respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint against the petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Udhampur and on the direction of learned CJM in terms of section 156 (3) of the Code, SHO Police Station, Udhampur registered FIR No. 18/2014 under sections 498-A & 354/34 RPC against the petitioners on 23.08.2014 and commenced the investigation. 3. Petitioners by the medium of this petition invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A of the Code seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against them on the ground that the allegations stated in the complaint and incorporated in the FIR are false and leveled with mala fide intention and that no part of the alleged occurrence has taken place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Udhampur so registration of FIR and investigation by Police Station, Udhampur is without jurisdiction. 4. Briefly stated, respondent No. 2 (complainant) has alleged in the complaint that ever since her marriage, petitioners had been harassing her while making demands for dowry. She has alleged that after her marriage with petitioner No. 1 she remained in the house of her in-laws at Jammu till 08.07.2013 and during this period she lead almost a secluded life as slave and bounded labourer. The conduct and behavior of all the petitioners was very much harsh, and inhuman towards her inasmuch as they had been making constant demands of dowry and taunts for bringing less dowry and using most abusive and insultive language causing mental torture and frustration to her, which caused harm and endangered to her health. 5. The conduct and behavior of all the petitioners was very much harsh, and inhuman towards her inasmuch as they had been making constant demands of dowry and taunts for bringing less dowry and using most abusive and insultive language causing mental torture and frustration to her, which caused harm and endangered to her health. 5. Respondent No. 2 has alleged also that on 09.07.2013, the petitioners brought her from her matrimonial house under the guise of going for a picnic at Patni Top and took her to the house of her parents at Udhampur, where they made a demand for Swift car and cash worth ten lac rupees from her mother and brothers and openly and clearly said that she should not be send back to her matrimonial house unless and until their demand is satisfied. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Mr. B. B. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2/FIR on plain reading shows that no part of the alleged occurrence did take place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Udhampur so registration of FIR and investigation by that Police Station is without jurisdiction and deserves quashing on that ground itself. Mr. Kotwal relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Prikshit Pathania’s and others v. Anuradha Dadwal, 2011 (1) JKJ 459. Besides, Mr. Kotwal submitted that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR on their face value do not constitute commission of offences under sections 498-A and 354 RPC or any other cognizable offence justifying registration of an FIR and investigation under section 156 (1) Cr.P.C. Contextually, Mr. Kotwal submitted that the allegations stated in the complaint/FIR are so absurd and inherent in probable that no prudent person can draw the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. Mr. Kotwal relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manav Mishra v State of J&K ors 2012 (4) JK 608. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that section 154 of the Code read with section 156 authorizes and imposes a duty on the Station House Officer of a Police Station to registered FIR, if on a report lodged/information received commission of cognizance offence is disclosed and to investigate the case. Mr. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that section 154 of the Code read with section 156 authorizes and imposes a duty on the Station House Officer of a Police Station to registered FIR, if on a report lodged/information received commission of cognizance offence is disclosed and to investigate the case. Mr. Sethi submitted further that as per sub-section (2) of section 156, investigation cannot be quashed on the ground that Police Station in question is not empowered under that section to investigate. Mr. Sethi concluded by submitting that the allegations stated in the complaint/ FIR make out commission of cognizable offences under section 498-A and 354 RPC against all the petitioners and no case for quashing the FIR is made out. 9. First question to be taken up is whether FIR should be quashed if no part of cause of action for lodging the FIR as per section 156 (1) of the Code has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station where the FIR has been registered. Reply to this question would be ‘no’ in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in Satvinder Kour vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 . Supreme Court while dealing with a similar question arising in an appeal against an order of the High Court in a petition under section 482 of the Code (section 561-A State Code) has held in para 8 of the reporting : “(1) The S.H.O. has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an F.I.R. is lodged. (2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Investigating Officer has no territorial jurisdiction. (3) After investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence”. 10. 10. Supreme Court while interpreting sections 156, 177 and 178 of the Code has held further in para 12 of the reporting: “A reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that section 177 provides for “ordinary” place of enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another and where it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.” 11. Prikshit Pathania’s case (supra) relied upon by learned petitioner’s counsel is distinguishable because question involved in that case relates to the jurisdiction of a Court to try a criminal case and this court had held that to permit a court having no jurisdiction to continue with trial would be against the interest of justice and abuse of process of the court. The question involved in case on hand relates to the jurisdiction of Police Station to investigate a case which however, cannot be raised at investigation stage. 12. The other ground of challenge to the FIR and investigation too would not prevail for the simple reason that, having regard to the allegations stated in the complaint, it cannot be said that the same do not make out a prima facie for registration of the FIR and investigation. It is now well settled by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, in particular landmark judgment in Bajan Lal’s case, AIR 1992 SC 604 , that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the Code (section 561-A State Code) though very vast should be exercised carefully and sparingly in exceptional circumstances to give effect to any order under the court or to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This jurisdiction can be invoked for quashing an FIR and investigation if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the allegations on their face value do not constitute any cognizance offence justifying investigation by the Police. This jurisdiction can be invoked for quashing an FIR and investigation if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the allegations on their face value do not constitute any cognizance offence justifying investigation by the Police. I may usefully refer to para 14 of Sativender Kour’s case (supra): “Further, the legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. (Re: State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, [1982] 1 SCC 561.) It is also settled by a long course of decision of this Court that for the purpose of exercising Us power under Section 482, Cr. P,C. to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. (Ref. Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, [1985] 2 SCC 370 at 395).” 13. The Manav Mishra’s case, 2012 (4) JKJ 608 relied upon by learned petitioners counsel relates to facts situation of that case and cannot be applied to the case on hand given the nature of allegations stated in the impugned complaint/ FIR. 14. Viewed as aforementioned, no case for quashing the FIR (supra) and investigation of the case is made and in the result this petition is dismissed as without merit.