ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of respondents No.3 to 5, whereby FIR lodged by the petitioner herein has been transferred to the Police Station Indrapuram, Gaziabad (UP). 2. The brief facts Essential for adjudication of the present dispute are as under:- 2.1 The petitioner was married with one Jashpreet Singh on 15.2.2014 at Gaziabad (UP). She thereafter complained some maltreatment and harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws, but she tried to settle the dispute and continue to lead her matrimonial life. In the month of February, 2015, she came to her parental home at Bilaspur (CG) along with her husband and stayed at Bilaspur for 20 days. Uncle of Jashpreet Singh namely Parminder Singh Bakshi also reached at Bilaspur. Allegation of the petitioner is that in 20 days her husband demanded dowry of Rs. 15,00,000/- to purchase flat and car at Dubai and also assaulted her and threatened her to kill and further demanded the said amount from her father. Thereafter they went back to Dubai. Behaviour of her husband was not proper, therefore, she came back to Bilaspur on 23.11.2015. Written complaint was made by the petitioner on 19.12.2015 at City Superintendent of Police, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur but the police did not take any action on the said complaint. Thereafter, she again made a complaint on 23.1.2016 to the Investigation Unit Crime against women in which, case has been referred to the Family Counselling Centre, Bilaspur. Husband of the petitioner never attended such Counselling. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. on 23.4.2016 at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, however, FIR was registered as Crime No.0/2016 by said police station, but the said police station recorded a finding that offence is said to have been committed at Indrapuram, District Gaziabad (UP) and transferred the FIR to the said Police Station for investigation and for further needful action. With the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Return has been filed supporting the action of transferring the FIR to Indrapuram Police Station, District Gaziabad (UP) 3. With the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Return has been filed supporting the action of transferring the FIR to Indrapuram Police Station, District Gaziabad (UP) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a careful perusal of the FIR and statement of the petitioner would clearly show that offence under Section 498A of the IPC has been committed only in the territorial jurisdiction of Bilaspur Court, therefore, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Bilaspur has jurisdiction to enquire the matter and it has illegally been transferred to Police Station Indrapuram, District Gaziabad (UP) contrary the provisions contained in section 177 of the CrPC, 1973 therefore, order transferring the FIR to the said Police Station deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the writ petition and would support the State action. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the record with utmost circumscription. 6. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the writ petition and would support the State action. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the record with utmost circumscription. 6. In order to decide the plea raised at the Bar, it would be firstly appropriate to notice the complaint made by the petitioner at Police Station City Kotwali on 19.12.2015, which reads as under:- ekg Qjojh 2015 esa tlizhr eq>s ysdj fcykliqj vk;sA ek;ds esa yxHkx 20 fnu :ds jgs bl chp tlizhr ds pkpk Hkh uks,M+k ls fcykliqj vkdj ?kj ij gh :ds vkSj ngst ds lkekuksa ds cnys uxn jde rFkk nqcbZ esa esjh tkWc u gksus dks ysdj fookn Hkh fd;s ,oa tlizhr us can dejs esa esjs lkFk ges'kk ekjihV dh FkhA fookn lqy>kus ,oa ngst dh jde dh vnk;xh ds fy, le; c<+kus ij lger u gksus dks en~ns utj j[k ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds vykok ikfjokfjd ifjfprksa esa ftuesa izeq[k :i ls xksMikjk ds lqjsUnz oekZ vady] f'kfj'k ik.Ms; vady] lq"kek Bkdqj vkaVhth xksikl vady ds lkFk vkdj fookn dks lqy>kus dh dksf'k'k fd;s ijUrq pkpk llqj ijfeanj flag cD'kh ngst ds lkekuksa ds cnys jde ysus ds fy, cksydj vM+s jgs bl >xM+s yM+kbZ ds ckjs esa tlizhr us vius ekrk&firk o HkkbZ HkkHkh dks Qksu ls crkrs jgs vkSj muds dgus ij tlizhr vius pkpk ls mudh ckr djkrs jgs bl rjg tlizhr dh ekrk }kjk fookn lqy>kus ds ctk; fookn dks c<+kus esa 'kg nsrs jgus ds dkj.k tlizhr vkSj pkpk llqj pkgs x;s ngst dh jde ysus ds fy, vM+s jgsA firk ,oa ifjokj tuksa ds cgqr le>kbZ'k o eku eukscy djus ds esjs firk cgqr etcwjh esa lger gq;s fd ngst ds lkekuksa ds cnys dh udn jkf'k nhokyh rd ns fn;k tkosxk ugha rks rq>s nqcbZ ls okil fcykliqj Hkst fn;k tkosxkA bl rjg dh ekufld izrkM+uk nsrs gq, eq>s fcykliqj ls okil nqcbZ ys tk;k x;k tgka esjk [kpZ ogu ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k eq>s bathfu;fjax tkac u feyus ds dkj.k e'kjsd cSad esa lsYl ykbZu ds tkc esa ;g lkspdj dke djuk iM+k fd eSa nhokyh ds igys llqjky okyksa dh lsok lqJq"kk djds mUgsa [kq'k dj yqaxh ij ,slk dqN Hkh ugha gks ldkA eq>s llqjky okyksa us ifr ls vyx dj ogka ds flD[k lekt esa esjh cnukeh djus yxs vkSj vkf[kjh esa fnikoyh rd esjs firkth 15 yk[k :i;s dk bartke ugha dj ik;s rc esjs ifr us eq>s l'krZ ek;ds tkus ds fy, dgk rc eSa fnuakd 23-11-2015 dks okil fcykliqj vius ekrk&firk ds ?kj vk xbZ gwaA gkykafd esjs llqj /kjechj flag c['kh] tsB izHkizhr flag c['kh gj ges'kk esjs i{k ysdj ifr lkl vkSj pkpk llqj dks le>krs jgs gSa fd ngst ds fy, nqYgu ;kus eq>s ekufld ,oa 'kkjhfjd izrkfM+r u djsa fQj Hkh buds lykg dks vuns[kk fd;k tkrk jgk gSA eq>s 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld izrkM+uk ,oa ngst /ku dh cykr ekax djus okys esjs ifr tlizhr flag lkl vfcuk'k vkSj c['kh tsBkuh lqehr dkSj c['kh pkpk llqj ijfeUnj flag c['kh edku u-767 lsDVj u- 29 xkSre cq) uxj] uks,M+ka mrj izns'k] ,oa B-102, SPS Residency Vaibhav Khand, Near Shipra Mall, Indrapuram, Gaziabad mrj izns'k ds fo:) dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA Likewise, relevant portion of the FIR dated 23.4.2016 reads as under:- ^^ekg Qjojh 2015 esa tlizhr eq>s ysdj fcykliqj vk;s ek;ds esa yxHkx 20 fnu :ds jgs bl nkSjku tlizhr ds pkpk Hkh uks,M+k ls fcykliqj vkdj ?kj ij gh :ds vkSj ngst ds lkekuksa ds cnys udn jde rFkk nqcbZ esa esjh tkc u gksus dks ysdj fookn Hkh fd;sA ,oa tlizhr us can dejs esa esjs lkFk ges'kk ekjihV dh FkhA fookn lqy>kus ,oa ngst dh jde dh vnk;xh fd fy, le; c<+kus ij lger u gksus dks eqnsutj j[k ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds vykok ikfjokfjd ifjfprksa esa ftlesa izeq[k :i ls xksMikjk ds lqjsUnz oekZ vady] f'kfj'k ik.Ms; vady] lq"kek Bkdqj vkaVh tks xksiky vady ds lkFk fookn lqy>kus dh dksf'k'k fd;s ijUrq pkpk llqj ijfeanj flag cD'kh ngst ds lkekuksa ds cnys jde ysus ds fy, cksydj vM+s jgs bl yM+kbZ ds ckjs esa tlizhr vius ekrk&firk o HkkbZ&HkkHkh dks Qksu ls crkrs jgs vkSj muds dgus ij tlizhr vius pkpk ls mudh ckr djkrs jgsA bl rjg tlizhr dh ekrk }kjk fookn lqy>kus ds ctk; c<+kus esa lg nsus ds dkj.k tlizhr vkSj pkpk llqj pkgs x;s ngst dh jde ysus ds fy, vM+s jgsA^^ Thereafter, in para 13 of the FIR Station House Officer has recorded the following finding:- ^^dk;Zokgh tks dh xbZ% mijksDr fooj.k ls /kkjk 498,] 34 Hkk0n0fo0 dk izdj.k iathc) dj foospuk esa fy;k x;k@ugha fy;k x;k rFkk dks izdj.k foopsuk gsrq lkSaik x;k] ;k {ks=kf/kdkj ds n`f"Vxr Fkkuk banjiqje ftyk xkft;kckn m0iz0 dks LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k n0iz0la0 dh /kkjk 154lh ^^ ds varxZr dk;Zokgh dh xbZA vfHk;ksxh@lwpukdrkZ dks iz0lw0 i= i<+okdj@i<+dj lquk;k x;k] ftUgksaus lgh&lgh vfHkfyf[kr gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA bldh ,d izfr lwpukdrkZ dks fu%'kqYd iznk; dh x;hA^^ 7. The question for consideration would be whether respondents No.3 to 5 were justified in transferring the first information report lodged by the complainant to Police Station Indrapuram, District Gaziabad (UP). 8. Section 177 of the CrPC, 1973 states as under:- "177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed." According to section 177 of the CrPC, 1973 every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 9. Recently, in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2016) 9 SCC 1 the Supreme Court has considered the scope and admit of section 177 to 188 of the CrPC, 1973 and held as under:- "24. Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it. Chapter XIII of the Code provides for "jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials". It is to be stated that under the said Chapter there are various provisions which empower the court for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or tried. This would be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188. 25. For our purpose, it would suffice to refer only to Sections 177 and 178 which are as under: "177. Ordinary place of enquiry and trial.-Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. This would be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188. 25. For our purpose, it would suffice to refer only to Sections 177 and 178 which are as under: "177. Ordinary place of enquiry and trial.-Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 178. Place of enquiry or trial.-(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas." 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. But after the investigation is over, if the officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he will forward the case to the Magistrate concerned empowered to take cognizance of the offence. 27. The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide was committed at Ambala. 27. The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide was committed at Ambala. The Ambala police closed the case after fulfilling the requirements of Section 174 of the Code holding that there was no foul play in the incident and also there was no requirement of lodging FIR under Section 154 as none of the family members of the deceased raised any suspicion over the death even though the death was committed within seven years of marriage. Also, there is no evidence of it being a continuing offence. Hence, the offence alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Durg. Prima facie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of that Court. " 10. Applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment (supra) to the facts of the present case, it is clear case where section 177 of the CrPC, 1973 squarely attracted as the offence is said to have been committed within the local jurisdiction of Bilaspur Court and offence under Section 498A of the IPC has been stated by the complainant to be committed at Bilaspur, therefore, Bilaspur Court has jurisdiction to try the offence and as such, Station House Officer, Police Station-City Kotwali, Bilaspur had jurisdiction to investigate the offence so stated in the complaint. Thus, respondents No.3 to 5 were totally unjustified in transferring the case to Police Station Indrapuram, District Gaziabad (UP). They ought to have investigated and proceeded further after due investigation. 11. Accordingly, last portion of the FIR directing transfer of first information report No.0/2016 in Case of Section 498A/34 of the IPC of Police Station-Mahila Thana, Bilaspur to Police Station Indarpuram, District Ghaziabad (UP) is hereby set aside. Director General of Police, State of Uttar Pradesh and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad are directed to send the case diary of Mu. A.S. (Mukhya Apradh Sanha) i.e. Crime No.795 of 2016 to Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) for needful action and in turn, Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur shall send the same to Station House Officer, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for further needful action. 12. A.S. (Mukhya Apradh Sanha) i.e. Crime No.795 of 2016 to Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) for needful action and in turn, Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur shall send the same to Station House Officer, Police Station-Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for further needful action. 12. A copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police, State of Uttar Pradesh, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, Station House Officer, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad (UP) and Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) for compliance and needful action. 13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).