JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No.10/2011 dated 10.09.2011 registered at Police Station GRP, Jammu under Sections 498-A, 420, 506, 34 RPC. 2. In the petition, it is stated that petitioner No.1 is the real mother-in-law and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are brother-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2, they are all married having children. It is stated that one deceased Raj Kumar Dewan was the head of the family and one eldest son Sanjay Dewan is the husband of complainant/respondent No.2 namely Smt. Geetika Dewan. The entire family lived jointly at 70-A Saket Meerut, U.P. Both Sanjay and Geetika also lived with the petitioners and deceased R.K.Dewan as the member of joint family continuously from their date of marriage upto 25.02.2011. It stated that head of the family Sh. R.K.Dewan unfortunately died in a fire massacre on 10.04.2006. Neither petitioners nor respondent No.2-Geetika and Sanjay Dewan after their marriage have at any stage lived at Jammu. It is further stated that Dewan family is a well known business/industrialist family of Meerut. The family has various businesses and run through companies, firms and society. Late R.K.Dewan and petitioner No.1 also created one trust under the name and style of Aryaman Educational Society 70-A, Saket Meeruit in the year 2002-03. The object and purpose of the trust was to set up an educational institutions/school for imparting education to children of all caste, creed and colour without distinction. The petitioners along with Sanjay Dewan and Geetika Dewan were the founder Trustee/members of the society. The trust was found under the complete control of Sanjay Dewan being the eldest son. Thereafter assets of the trust were created by deceased R.K. Dewan and petitioner No.1 and a school under the name and style of Dewan Public School International, Rithani, Partapur, Meeruit came up on the assets being run, manage and control by the above said Aryaman Society. It is further stated that the family had always reposed all trust faith and confidence in Sanjay Dewan being the eldest son of the family and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 paid all respect and honour to the eldest brother and always obeyed to the command and directions of Sanjay Dewan without ever questioning the decision and directions as abiding younger brothers. Sanjay Dewan after the death of Sh. 2 to 4 paid all respect and honour to the eldest brother and always obeyed to the command and directions of Sanjay Dewan without ever questioning the decision and directions as abiding younger brothers. Sanjay Dewan after the death of Sh. Raj Kumar Dewan became more dominant in the family businesses and Geetika Dewan at home. The family still continued to repose all the trust and confidence in Sanjay and Geetika in routine and regular course of business and family. In an around July 2010, the petitioners started getting information of mis-appropriation of funds, misdeeds, misconduct, fraud and forgery committed by Sanjay Dewan in the business. Though it was really shocking and hard to believe but as evidence started pouring in, and Sanjay’s illegal acts, deeds and things got corroborated and confirmed his fraud was fully highlighted being in crores resulted into unhappiness and disputes in the family. Consequently a civil suit being OS No.207/2011 ‘Dewan Steels Ltd. vs. M/s Vasudev Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Sanjay Dewan’ was filed on 21.02.2011 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division Meerut. The suit was for declaration of illegal null and void sale deed of immoveable property fraudulently sold by Sanjay Dewan. Sanjay Dewan on coming to know of the filing of the above said suit got very angry and flaired up. He created great nuisance in the house. He misbehaved with the petitioners and other members of the family, threatening them for dire consequences. He even threatened to involve the petitioners into false and frivolous criminal cases if the suit is not withdrawn. It is further stated that Sanjay and Geetika along with the children on 25.02.2011 left the family house 70-A, Saket Meeruit along with all their goods, articles and belongings including gold and jewellery, to the family’s another fully furnished house D-122, Sector 47, Noida, U.P. It is relevant to state that since the marriage having taken place thirteen years back, the parties being living as joint family over the period, the gifts of the marriage being consumed or have been defused through use in the family. This is the reason why the complainant has not even casually mentioned anything with respect to the same in her complaint. 3. This is the reason why the complainant has not even casually mentioned anything with respect to the same in her complaint. 3. It is further stated that Sanjay Dewan repeated threats even thereafter and petitioner No.1 apprehending danger at the hands of Sanjay on his repeated visits to Meerut house left petitioner No.1 with no option except to take the most unpleasant forced decision of her life as mother to report with DIG Police Meerut on 27.02.2011, seeking protection of family members from Sanjay and forbidding him to enter into the Meerut house and near by areas. In spite of the above, both Sanjay and Geetika continued to create nuisance and pressure tactics for withdrawal of civil suit and to further stop probing enquiries, and complaints to various authorities and departments against Sanjay Dewan, and repeated visits of both of them in the house resulting into quarrels and nuisance, and seeing no help from police authorities, petitioner No.1 was forced to file another civil suit No.279/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge Sr. Division Meerut against Sanjay and Geetika restraining them from permanently entering into the family house at 70-A Saket, Meerut and the suit is still pending. As the family came to know that Sanjay Dewan has, while he had charge of family businesses, committed certain acts which accounted to fraud and forgery, resulted in separate FIRs being filed and registered with concerned police in Meerut as FIR Nos. 243/2011 and 245/2011 with Police Station Civil Lines Meerut. 4. As a first counter blast, Smt. Geetika Dewan filed a suit at Meerut against petitioners herein which was registered as Suit No.619/2011 in July 2011 with Civil Judge, Sr. Division Meerut. The suit related to relief prayed by Geetika Dewan that House No.70-A at Saket Meerut did not belong to petitioner No.1. That one of the prime businesses of family created by way of Trust as mentioned earlier is Dewan Public School International captured by Sanjay & Geetika by forging documents. Under CBSE norms, it is a requirement that a school for its recognition should have 10,000/- square yards of land. As the school was falling short by approximately 2000 square yards, Sanjay Dewan and his wife Geetika Dewan, took an extreme step of mobilizing musclemen, armed with fire arms, tried forcibly to take possession of family property comprised of land adjacent to school. As the school was falling short by approximately 2000 square yards, Sanjay Dewan and his wife Geetika Dewan, took an extreme step of mobilizing musclemen, armed with fire arms, tried forcibly to take possession of family property comprised of land adjacent to school. This resulted in yet another FIR being filed by petitioner No.3 which was registered as FIR No.400/2011 by Police Station Partapur, Meerut. While two accused named in FIR were arrested on spot, Sanjay Dewan and Geetika Dewan named as accused in FIR are avoiding participation in investigation. As counter blast to civil actions and FIR’s filed in Meerut, Sanjay Dewan through his wife Geetika Dewan filed a false and frivolous complaint u/s 156(3) CrPC in the court of learned Municipal Magistrate Jammu and sought direction to Police Station GRP, Jammu for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.10/2011 on 11.09.2011 under Section 506/34, 498-A/420, 406 RPC against petitioners herein was lodged. Petitioners came to know about registration of FIR on 12.09.2011 when police party from Jammu went to Meerut for their arrest and was looking for petitioners. Fortunately for the petitioners, none was present in house. Immediately after coming to know that concerned police party had come for arresting petitioners in Meerut, petitioners immediately started taking steps to know as why and how a police party had come from Jammu who were looking for petitioners. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved with the registration of false and frivolous FIR being FIR No.10/2011, under their lawful rights as enshrined under law, seek legal egress through this petition and challenge the same, inter-alia, amongst others on following grounds:- (a). That, impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as same does not disclose commission of any offence committed in the city of Jammu nor did have the police by reference to allegations made in FIR have any territorial jurisdiction to the same. (b). That, FIR is a counter blast to the civil suits and FIR’s filed at Meerut. FIR on the face of record is false, not only, into what is contained in allegations therein, but, is so false to the belief and knowledge of complainant Geetika Dewan. Only to harass the family and petitioners, recourse has been taken, by manipulations and by influence in getting the said false FIR registered in Jammu. FIR on the face of record is false, not only, into what is contained in allegations therein, but, is so false to the belief and knowledge of complainant Geetika Dewan. Only to harass the family and petitioners, recourse has been taken, by manipulations and by influence in getting the said false FIR registered in Jammu. It is known to complainant herself, that, nothing of this sought as is alleged in FIR has ever happened, yet to force the family into submission the false FIR has been registered. (c). That the aim and object of filing of FIR is to have petitioners arrested. Recourse to filing of FIR by complainant has been made with the sole object of achieving object of defeating the civil as well criminal litigation filed in Meerut. Unfortunately for petitioners the concerned police authority have by becoming playable tools in the hands of complainant only allowed the majesty of law and power of registration of FIR and investigation being abused and misused in every sense of the term. (d). That reading of FIR would make it clear, that even, if the false allegations made therein are taken correct at their face value and even if allegations, so made were to be tested even by this Court without recourse to reading of facts, which have been pleaded by petitioners from para 1 to earlier ground in this petition, yet the FIR would not disclose commission of any offence, much less cognizable one. There is no escape for an officer having power to register FIR, from the duty of recording his reasons, for suspecting, on the allegations made and satisfaction drawn that the allegation did disclose commission of a cognizable offence. If only, the registering authority had considered the allegations made, there would have been no registering of RIR. The allegations even if were prima facie accepted, yet no offence was disclosed to have been committed. (e). That as has been pleaded, the object of registration of FIR is to enter an investigation, if, there appear reasonable grounds for believing commission of a cognizable offence. The allegations even if were prima facie accepted, yet no offence was disclosed to have been committed. (e). That as has been pleaded, the object of registration of FIR is to enter an investigation, if, there appear reasonable grounds for believing commission of a cognizable offence. Investigation cannot be entered by registration of FIR so as to make an excuse for achieving an object which is not investigation of any suspected cognizable offence, but, helping the complainant to pursue her agenda of taking recourse by using arm of police to further her vengeance and vendetta against an innocent family and force such family into submission of accepting what is patently illegal. The FIR, being as a result of arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction and power by concerned police authorities. (f). That as has been pleaded Sh. Sanjay Dewan and his wife Smt. Geetika Dewan were living in joint family for thirteen long years with petitioners. Not only Sh. Sanjay Dewan & Smt. Geetika Dewan but their two children who were also living happily in joint family till a family was struck with misfortune of Sanjay Dewan, abusing and misusing the trust and confidence of family in managing and running affairs of family in both domestic life and businesses of the family. Petitioners are a family who has a name in Meerut. The family has a standing. It is extremely unfortunate for a family to be sucked into a situation which is primarily because of wrong doing of its own family members i.e., Sanjay Dewan and Geetika Dewan. The allegations made in the FIR are so false that even the maker thereof as also, her husband, would be, ashamed of, yet, they have filed the same for purposes of harassing and humiliating the family. (g). That while police has power to register, which becomes its duty, if condition on which such power of registration is met, yet this power cannot be exercised except for and on conditions and conditionalities on which such power is granted under the statute. Power to register an FIR is not absolute. It is not absolute as to make it arbitrary with an authority. Reason to believe and suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, are reasonable which have not to be and cannot be allowed to be manipulated, fabricated and presented for facilitating registration thereof. There has to be “Reasons” based on facts. Power to register an FIR is not absolute. It is not absolute as to make it arbitrary with an authority. Reason to believe and suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, are reasonable which have not to be and cannot be allowed to be manipulated, fabricated and presented for facilitating registration thereof. There has to be “Reasons” based on facts. Petitioners believe and they have every reason to believe, even the police must have know and every reason to know that the FIR was false, yet have registered the same, so as to help the complainant achieve an object which is not the object of registration of FIR. (h). That Hon’ble Court may permit petitioners to plead, that, while they are pleading FIR was false to the knowledge of maker thereof, yet, all the allegations so made were allegedly made against the petitioner No.1 and have been stretched to other petitioners by their conduct in Meerut. No part of offence, if the FIR is churned to find out one appearing from the same, could be deemed to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of any police station in state of J&K. FIR has been registered, not even as a matter of course, but has been registered by showing scant respect for provisions of law, particularly relating to registration of FIR. On this ground as well, the police have only misused and abused their power and authority in registering the FIR. On the basis of allegation made in FIR when territorially no such jurisdiction is available to police, not only the FIR, thus is liable to be quashed, but if there may be any order to police for registration or investigation of the matter, that also being contrary to law and not being capable of conferring any jurisdiction and justification or authority for justification for registration of FIR, the same is also liable to be quashed. 6. This Court vide order dated 27.09.2011, issued notices to other side and in the meantime, further proceedings in case registered as FIR No.10/2011, Police Station GRP, Jammu was kept in abeyance till next date before the Bench. 7. 6. This Court vide order dated 27.09.2011, issued notices to other side and in the meantime, further proceedings in case registered as FIR No.10/2011, Police Station GRP, Jammu was kept in abeyance till next date before the Bench. 7. In response to the petition, learned State counsel has filed objection on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that case FIR No.10/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 506 & 34 RPC was registered at Police Station GRP, Jammu on 10.09.2011 on the receipt of a written complaint lodged by complainant Mrs. Geetika Dewan duly forwarded by the Court of learned Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate Jammu u/s 156(3) dated 05.09.2011. The respondent after taking up the investigation of the instant case, recorded the statement of complainant u/s 161-A Cr.P.C. and proceeded towards Meerut (UP) along with police team in connection with the investigation and visited the residential house of accused persons i.e 70-A, Saket Civil Lines, Meerut (UP) with the assistance of Meerut Police. The requisite proceeding in the investigation would not be carried out as the said house was found locked and nobody was available there. Efforts were made to arrange the presence of accused persons on spot but in vain as it was learnt that the accused persons had fled away after anticipating the movement of police team. 8. It is further stated that during course of investigation G.M. Mobile service Airtel Noida was requested to provide call detail report (CDR) of mobile phone No.8527010032, for last couple of months on which the complainant allegedly received threats and communications for demand of more dowry from accused side, the requisite is still awaited. 8. It is further stated that during course of investigation G.M. Mobile service Airtel Noida was requested to provide call detail report (CDR) of mobile phone No.8527010032, for last couple of months on which the complainant allegedly received threats and communications for demand of more dowry from accused side, the requisite is still awaited. It is further stated that respondent along with police team again proceeded to Meerut (UP) on 22.10.2011 and visited the aforesaid residential house of accused person in order to conduct the investigation with regard to the jewelry and other costly articles belonging to the complainant which are allegedly being retained and misappropriated by the accused persons, furniture’s, other house hold items, material like wood/teak/ply wood etc provided by the parents of the complainant to her at the time of her marriage and afterwards during the house construction of accused allegedly been demanded by the accused as dowry and financial assistance provided by the parents of the complainant to her in-laws in shape of dowry under acute compulsions which was spent on the studies of two brother-in-laws of complainant i.e. accused Nos.3&4 who were studying in Bangalore at that time. The said house of the accused persons was again found locked and no inmate was available there due to which the required proceedings could not be completed at that stage also. Thereafter the statements of some more witnesses were also recorded. 9. It is also stated that the proceedings carried out during the initial/primary stage of investigation in the case conducted so for including the statement of the complainant, other witnesses and certain relevant evidence placed on record reveal that the marriage of the complainant was in fact solemnized in a very lavish and generous manner and lot of dowry was given to her by her parents on the demand of her in-laws as for the lust of handsome dowry, the accused persons might had opted to arrange the marriage of Mr. Sanjay Dewan with the complainant being the youngest daughter of one of the well known industrialist of Jammu. Sanjay Dewan with the complainant being the youngest daughter of one of the well known industrialist of Jammu. After marriage the demand of more dowry started coming from the accused side in shape of financial assistance for the construction of their residential house at 70-A Saket Civil Lines, Meerut, by making harassment to the complainant and under acute compulsion, the father of the complainant had contributed major part for the construction of the said house in shape of cash, wood teak/plywood and other related items. Moreover most of the cash deposited by the parents of the complainant in banks as fixed deposits in her name was also drawn by the complainant before maturity under sever compulsion during the period of house construction. The father of complainant was also compelled under inevitable circumstances to bear all the expenses for the completion of the studies of accused namely Vikas Dewan and Sachan Dewan who were studying in Bangalore in an Engineering College between 1997-2000. The complainant who is a Dentist doctor was being provided with a private dental clinic at Meerut which was constructed and established with the financial assistance of her father. The parents of the complainant also gifted two light vehicles to her on the demand of her in-laws. It is further contended that in view of the emerging threats, cruelty and harassment made by the accused persons, the complainant was forced to leave her in-laws house and her parents were compelled to purchase the land and construct a house at Noida for the peace-living of their daughter were she along with her husband Sanjay Dewan and two kids is presently putting up as she was pulled out from her in-laws house by the accused persons in the month of February this year. All the expenses of the purchase of land and construction of above mentioned house was beared by her parents and an amount of Rs.35 lacs was got as housing loan from Vijaya Bank, Jammu in the name of complainant and the installments of the same are being paid by the parents of the complainant. All the expenses of the purchase of land and construction of above mentioned house was beared by her parents and an amount of Rs.35 lacs was got as housing loan from Vijaya Bank, Jammu in the name of complainant and the installments of the same are being paid by the parents of the complainant. The below mentioned amount was transferred to A/c No.2886 J&K Bank Branch Meerut in favour of the complainant from J&K Bank Account No.SB-317 branch Jammu by the parents of the complainant:- a. 2005-2006 5,51,000/- b. 2006-2007 5,47,000/- c. 2007-2008 7, 15,000/- d. 2008-2009 7,00,000/- e. 2008-2009 2,99,000/- f. 2009-2010 7,10,000/- g. 2010-2011 5,70,000/- h. 2011-till date 10,50,000/- As such the total amount paid in cash including the installments of the housing loan by the parents to the complainant is Rs.80,42,000/-. 10. The investigation of the case is in progress and the accused persons namely (1) Parshanta Rani w/o R.K.Dewan, (2) Ajay Dewan (3) Vikas Dewan and (4) Sachin Dewan all R/o 70-A Saket Civil Lines Meerut (UP) are hell bent to hamper the investigation by making attempts to destroy all the evidence. It is therefore, prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record file. 12. In AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 37 in case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., wherein it is held as under :- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. 12. In AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 37 in case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., wherein it is held as under :- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad, Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. Keeping in view above law into consideration, I will decide the present case. The contents of FIR read as under:- “That the complainant is married to Shri Sanjay Dewan S/O Shri R K Dewan, R/O 70 A, Saket Civil Lines, Meerut, U.P. The marriage of complainant with Mr. Sanajay Dewan was arranged marriage. The complainant is one of the well known industrialists of Jammu. Being the youngest child, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized in very lavish and generous manner and lot of dowry was to be given in her marriage of course on the demand of her in-laws, that is accused named above, and most of the part of the dowry has been retained by the accused No.1. That after the marriage the demand of dowry started coming from accused side in the shape of providing financial assistance for construction of residential house. The father of the complainant was compelled by the accused under the circumstances to meet the said demands and he has majorly contributed for construction of the house. That after the marriage the demand of dowry started coming from accused side in the shape of providing financial assistance for construction of residential house. The father of the complainant was compelled by the accused under the circumstances to meet the said demands and he has majorly contributed for construction of the house. The father of complainant was also made to give substantial amount for completion of the study of accused 3 and 4, who were studying at that point of time and were residing in hostel facilities. That despite the fact that the demands of accused were met by the father of the complainant, still the complainant was treated with physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons exert more pressure upon her to bring in more dowry. With meeting every demand of dowry, the cruelty and harassment of the accused towards the complainant increased manifold and the harassment and cruelty by them towards the complainant increased just to ensure that more money brought to them by the complainant from her father. That, however, throughout this period the complainant has the consolation of harassment Sanjay Dewan who has remained a caring husband and always stood by her all the pressure, cruelty and torture by the accused persons. That before marriage the complainant’s family was given an impression that the accused persons belong to very well established family having lot of property. That after the marriage, the complainant found the accused persons knee deep in debts and owe lot of money to the people and the accused persons forced the complainant by harassment and mental cruelty to bring money from her father to meet the payment of the debts of the family. That not only the complainant was mentally harassed but her life has been made as a living hell. That the time of marriage, lot of jewelries was given to the complainant by her father and relatives which was in addition to the jewelries given to the accused persons and their other relatives. The accused No.1 immediately after the marriage got almost all the jewelries belonging to the complainant from her in order to keep them in safe custody on the assurance that the same will be returned as and when required by the complainant. That the complainant believed and trusted accused No.1 and as such entrusted all her jewelries to the accused No.1. That the complainant believed and trusted accused No.1 and as such entrusted all her jewelries to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 thereafter despite number of requests and demands in this regard never returned the jewelries items and now the relations between the parties have worsened and despite making of specific demands in this regard, the accused No.1 has also the others accused who are instigating and abetting her has refused the return the said articles jewelries items. Those numbers of various other items belonging to the complainant are still lying in the matrimonial home of the complainant at Meerut. But the complainant has been thrown out of her matrimonial home and has been made live with her husband in Noida where she is living without any financial security as all her property and articles which are lying in the house at Meerut has been misappropriated by the accused persons. That the husband of the complainant has started a school being Dewan Public International School after investing lot of fund but the property of the complainant has been sought to be misappropriated by the accused persons through their efforts in this regard has been appropriately checked. That accused persons have also leveled false and frivolous complaints against the complainant and her husband which is an attempt to blackmail the complainant and her husband making them to leave all their properties and toe line of accused persons. That complainant is presently living in her parental house at Jammu and using Mobile number 8527010032. That the complainant on 04.09.2011 has received repeated call on the aforesaid number. In which the accused persons have threatened the complainant that in case she does not agree with their demands of leaving all the properties and further giving the accused persons a further sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from her father, the accused persons will eliminate the complainant and will also file false and frivolous complaints against her. That she has run away with the gold ornaments and other properties of the accused persons which is absolutely false. That as a matter of fact the complainant and her husband have been thrown out from the matrimonial house and they are living outside their permanent resident. That the accused persons have committed heinous crime punishable under sections 406/498A/506/420/34 RPC. That she has run away with the gold ornaments and other properties of the accused persons which is absolutely false. That as a matter of fact the complainant and her husband have been thrown out from the matrimonial house and they are living outside their permanent resident. That the accused persons have committed heinous crime punishable under sections 406/498A/506/420/34 RPC. This written complaint was made to JMIC ( Municipal Magistrate), Jammu ) Jammu, who at pre cognizance stage directed Police station GRP, Jammu to investigate the matter in-terms of section 156(3) Cr.P.C, who registered FIR on 10.9.2011 being FIR no. 10/2011 u/s 498-A,420,506/34 RPC. 14. Bare perusal of allegations leveled in FIR, it is evident that it does not disclose any cognizable offence for which complaint has been lodged; even if all the allegations are taken as it is, no case for commission of offence as alleged u/s 498-A,420,506/34 RPC has been made out. Further perusal of FIR, it would further reveal that no offence has been alleged to have taken place at Jammu. All the facts narrated in complaint are pertaining to outside state. The magistrate (JMIC) without going into averments of case has referred the matter to GRP Jammu for registration of FIR in terms of section 156(3) Cr.P.C and investigation, and on the basis which, FIR no. 10/2011 u/s 498-A/420/506 /34 RPC has been registered against the petitioners. Firstly magistrate was required to see as to whether he has got territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matter or not. 15. The issue in the present petition is not whether the SHO concerned or the Investigating Officer investigating the offence had the territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offences but whether the Magistrate who passed the order for registration of FIR had the jurisdiction to pass directions on the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to the SHO of a police station, when magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction in taking cognizance of offence. Section 154 Cr.P.C casts a duty on the officer in-charge of a police station to register the first information, if the same discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, even if the offence is not committed within its territorial jurisdiction. However, a Magistrate exercises its jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Section 156 Cr.P.C. provides as under: “156. Section 154 Cr.P.C casts a duty on the officer in-charge of a police station to register the first information, if the same discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, even if the offence is not committed within its territorial jurisdiction. However, a Magistrate exercises its jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Section 156 Cr.P.C. provides as under: “156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.-(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.” 16. Therefore, Section 156 (1) Cr.P.C requires that any officer in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Cr.p.c. Further sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. is qualified by sub-section (1) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. Thus though Section 154 Cr.P.C. does not qualify the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in-charge who receives the information to register the same, however, Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. qualify the territorial jurisdiction of the officer in-charge to investigate offences within the limits of such station. Therefore, a Magistrate can direct the officer in-charge of a police station to investigate a cognizable offence which is within the jurisdiction of its local area. Thus a Magistrate is required to adhere to the territorial jurisdiction and in case it is not empowered to try the said offence, it has no jurisdiction to pass order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 17. While deciding the issue whether Magistrate has power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to direct CBI to conduct investigation into any offence, the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2001) 3 SCC 333 Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., held: "5. While deciding the issue whether Magistrate has power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to direct CBI to conduct investigation into any offence, the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2001) 3 SCC 333 Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., held: "5. For deciding the present question we may refer to the powers of the Magistrate in ordering an investigation. There are three provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") by which a Magistrate can order investigation to be conducted. They are Sections 155, 156 and 202 of the Code. Among them Section 155 concerns only with the investigation into non-cognizable offences whereas Section 202 only enables a Magistrate to have the assistance of an investigation conducted either by the police or by any other person, for the limited purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. Hence we need not vex our mind with those two provisions. It is Section 156 of the Code which is relevant for the present purpose as it deals with investigation into cognizable offences. The section reads thus: "156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases.--(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned." 6. If the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation by CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be traced in the above provision, it is not possible to trace such power in any other provision of the Code. What is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 156, is the power to order the investigation referred to in sub-section (1), because the words "order such an investigation as abovementioned" in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section. Thus the power is to order an "officer in charge of a police station" to conduct investigation. 7. What is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 156, is the power to order the investigation referred to in sub-section (1), because the words "order such an investigation as abovementioned" in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section. Thus the power is to order an "officer in charge of a police station" to conduct investigation. 7. The two expressions "police station" and "officer in charge of a police station" have been given separate definitions in the Code. Section 2 of the Code defines "officer in charge of a police station" as under: "2. (o) 'officer in charge of a police station' includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of Constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;" 8. Section 2(s) defines a "police station" as under: "2. (s) 'police station' means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;" 9. It is clear that a place or post declared by the Government as police station, must have a police officer in charge of it and if he, for any reason, is absent in the station house, the officer who is next in the junior rank present in the police station, shall perform the function as officer in charge of that police station. The primary responsibility for conducting investigation into offences in cognizable cases vests with such police officer. Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction." 18. Sections 177 to 184 Cr.P.C. provide for territorial jurisdiction to try the offence which qualification is not prescribed under Section 154 Cr.P.C but under Sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C. 19. Further in present case, petitioner No.1 is the real mother-in-law and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are brother-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2, they are all married having children. The various litigations were also pending between parties. The husband of complainant has not been arrayed as accused. Further in present case, petitioner No.1 is the real mother-in-law and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are brother-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2, they are all married having children. The various litigations were also pending between parties. The husband of complainant has not been arrayed as accused. So without arraying husband of complainant as accused and arraying only mother in law and brothers in law as accused in complaint; against present petitioners the allegation is that “complainant is presently living in her parental house at Jammu and using Mobile number 8527010032; on 04.09.2011 she has received repeated call on the aforesaid number, in which the accused persons have threatened the complainant that in case she does not agree with their demands of leaving all the properties and further giving the accused persons a further sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from her father, the accused persons will eliminate the complainant and will also file false and frivolous complaints against her; bare perusal of these allegation, it would reveal that theses has cleverly been drafted in order to create illusion of criminal act, because no phone number/s of accused has been mentioned from where calls were received, no specific name of accused has been given who made call; thus the intentions of complainant seem to be of malicious and wreaking vengeance in nature against theses accused. Even otherwise all the allegations made in the first information report/complaint even if these are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, it does not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused persons/petitioners. Further the allegations in the first information report even if accepted do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1). One more aspect is also relevant that complaint has been forwarded to GRP (Railway police); this railway police of Jammu and Kashmir deals with cases at railway platform and tracks including protection of railways property. From perusal on complaint, it is evident that such criminal act has taken place in such area. 20. The allegations made in the FIR are thus so absurd and inherently improbable and these criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide as has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge and to settle other litigations pending between parties. 20. The allegations made in the FIR are thus so absurd and inherently improbable and these criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide as has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge and to settle other litigations pending between parties. 21. In view of above discussion, this petition is allowed and FIR No.10/2011 dated 10.09.2011 registered at Police Station GRP, Jammu under Sections 498-A, 420, 506, 34 RPC, is quashed.