JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners inter alia seek quashing of an FIR No.66/2016 u/s 498-A/109 RPC registered at Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu against the petitioners. 2. Before challenging the FIR in question, it is in the fitness of things to give a short resume of facts leading to filing of this instant petition. 3. The petitioners are the parents of one Sagar Dua. The petitioners brought up their son and imparted him higher education. After completing the education, they were expecting that their son will marry according to their wishes, but to the chagrin of the petitioners, the son of the petitioners took a unilateral decision to marry with one lady, namely, Smt. Parul Sharma D/o Vijay Sharma R/o Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. The petitioners herein had not given permission to their son Shri Sagar Dua, for marrying with the said lady as they made enquiries regarding the family background of the said lady, which enquiry did not reveal good things about the family of said Smt. Parul Sharma. No sooner the son of the petitioners' married with said Smt. Parul Sharma, the petitioners severed all relations with their son and in this behalf they published a notice in daily newspaper, "Rashtriya Sahara". It is further stated that prior to marriage and after solemnization of the marriage, the son of the petitioners, namely Sagar Dua and his wife Smt. Parul Sharma, were living separately in a separate house, which fact is borne by a lease deed dated 10.07.2015 and 26.05.2016, which shows that the son of the petitioners was residing in a rental accommodation initially in Flat no.U-13/45 DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana and later in Flat at F-2606SF, Ansal’s Escencia, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 67, Gurgaon-122001. It is further stated that after few months of marriage, the petitioners herein learnt from the reliable source that relations between their son and daughter-in-law became strained, and daughter-in-law Smt. Parul Sharma was demanding huge money from their son to settle his brother, namely, Akhil Sharma. After his strained relations with his wife, the petitioners' son rarely visited the house of the petitioners, however, the petitioners would remind him that they had at the first instance told him not to marry with the lady namely, Smt. Parul Sharma. After his strained relations with his wife, the petitioners' son rarely visited the house of the petitioners, however, the petitioners would remind him that they had at the first instance told him not to marry with the lady namely, Smt. Parul Sharma. Eventually in the month of July, 2016 the daughter-in-law of the petitioners left the residential apartment F-2606SF, Ansal's Escencia, Golf Course Extension Road Sector 67, Gurgaon-122001 on her own and went to her parental home. From her parental home the daughter-in-law of petitioners and her parents used to send threatening messages to the petitioners. Aggrieved of the said threatening, the petitioners herein served a legal notice through their Advocate upon Smt. Parul Sharma and her parents. It is further stated that with a mala fide intention and in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioners, their daughter-in-law, Smt. Parul Sharma, filed a complaint before the Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, alleging therein that she has been thrown out of her matrimonial home and dowry demands were being made by the petitioners and their son. In the first instance, Police Station Women Cell Jammu, sent that complaint to Police Station Women Cell, Gurgaon for further probe and the Women Cell Gurgaon found that all the allegations are baseless and concocted. When the FIR was not lodged, the lady namely, Smt Parul Sharma (daughter-in-law of petitioners) filed an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. concealing all these facts and the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Registrar) Jammu without giving an opportunity to the police, directed the Police Station Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu to lodge an FIR and accordingly FIR came to be lodged bearing FIR No. 66/2016, registered under section 498-A/109 RPC. The petitioners were never aware of the proceedings filed before the Judicial Magistrate and neither they were made parties. It is further stated that since the petitioners' son had contracted marriage on matrimonial site without the consent and permission of the petitioners, as such, petitioners are not party to this marriage neither the couple had lived in the house of the petitioners after solemnization of marriage, there was, therefore, no question of making any sort of demand for dowry. The petitioners' son was aware that his wife was not from a well-off family and he himself borne expenses for ring-ceremony as well as for the marriage. The petitioners' son was aware that his wife was not from a well-off family and he himself borne expenses for ring-ceremony as well as for the marriage. At the time of ring ceremony he spent Rs.17,188/-for booking the hall and also arranged for feast and has borne the expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-(for food, decoration and tenting). At the time of marriage he has spent Rs.2,20,000/-. 4. The petitioners being aggrieved of the lodgment of FIR No.66/2016 by Police Station Women Cell Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, have challenged the same inter alia on the following grounds. (i) For that bare perusal of the documents which have been placed on record with this petition will show that there is no question of making any dowry demand by the petitioners as the petitioners were living separately and had no connection with their son who was living in a rented accommodation/residential flat at F-2606SF, Ansal's Escencia, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 67, Gurgaon-122001. So there was no question of any sort of harassment to the said lady Smt. Parul Sharma and consequently a demand for dowry is also false. (ii) For that the FIR has been lodged by concealing all the material facts and it has been lodged with an ulterior motive to cause harassment to the petitioners to wreak vengeance on the petitioners as the petitioners had not consented for the marriage of their son with Smt. Parul Sharma. In order to wreak vengeance on the petitioners, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons in the case though they were neither party to the marriage nor were they living with their son or the complainant. (iii) That this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case can entertain this petition in view of the mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled, “State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others. (vi) That in the first instance the complaint filed by complainant, namely, Smt. Parul Sharma was probed and was sent for further verification regarding its contents to Women Cell Gurgaon and the Women Cell Gurgaon have found that the contents of the complaint are false and concocted, however, concealing the above said fact the complainant approached the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Registrar) Jammu and the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Registrar) Jammu and the Ld. Judicial Magistrate without giving an opportunity to the police, have directed to lodge the FIR. (v) That even otherwise if the contents of the complaint as well as FIR are taken to be true in that eventuality no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-Registrar) Jammu or within the local limits of Women Police Station Jammu. The marriage of the son of the petitioners was solemnized in Gurgaon in November, 2015 and even if assuming though not admitting that contents of FIR are true still the crime alleged cannot be investigated by the respondent No. 2 as the said respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the compliant and lodge FIR. Thus, on this count also there is a legal bar to proceed with the investigation of the FIR. (vi) That the police concerned is bent upon to arrest the present petitioners allegedly for committing offence under section 498-A read with section 109 which act of the police is also in violation of mandate of the Supreme Court judgment referred to hereinabove. It is submitted that the petitioners are alleged to have committed non-bailable offence. The petitioners being respectable citizens of the soil are not habitual criminals and have deep roots in the society. The petitioners, as such, pray that in the eventuality of arrest in the aforesaid FIR they be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. 5. Respondent Nos.1&2 have filed objections wherein it is stated that on 22.12.2016 the complainant namely Parul Sharma W/o Mr. The petitioners, as such, pray that in the eventuality of arrest in the aforesaid FIR they be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. 5. Respondent Nos.1&2 have filed objections wherein it is stated that on 22.12.2016 the complainant namely Parul Sharma W/o Mr. Sagar Dua D/o Vijay Sharma R/o at present House No. 51, sector No.4, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu submitted a complaint duly forwarded by the court of learned JMIC, Jammu under section 156 (3) CrPC against (i) Sagar Dua S/o Narinder Dua (ii) Narinder Dua S/o Girdhari Lal Dua (iii) Smt Usha Dua W/o Narinder Dua (iv) Keshav Dua S/o Nariner Dua, all residents of Flat No. 101-A, Lal Agoon Apartments, Sector No. 54, Gurgaon, Haryana, stating that her parents solemnized her marriage with the accused, person namely Sagar Dua on 23.11.2015 according to the Hindu rites and rituals; that at the time of marriage her-in-laws impersonating themselves as business tycoons and respectable citizens of Delhi but after the marriage applicant accompanied the accused persons including the petitioners herein to Delhi at their residential house and within a period of one month the attitude and behavior of the above mentioned persons suddenly changed and they started ill treating the complainant and time and again thrashed the complainant with fists and blows for not bringing enough dowry. The said persons started to demand more dowry from the parents of complainant. That on 25.07.2016 the accused persons including the petitioners forced the complainant to leave her matrimonial home. On this a case FIR No.66/2016 was registered in P/S Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. During the course of investigation, the IO recorded the statements of complainant, as well as, other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. As per the statements of complainant and other witnesses, the I.O established the offence under Section 498-A RPC against the accused No.1, namely, Sagar Dua S/o Narinder Dua R/o Flat No.101-A, Lal Agoon Apartments, Sector No.54, Gurgaon, Haryana and offence under Section 498-A/109 RPC against the accused (i) Narinder Dua S/o Girdhari Lal (ii) Smt Usha Dua W/o Narindr Dua and (iii) Smt Manshi Dua W/o Keshav Dua, all residents of Flat No.101-A, Lal Agoon Apartments, Sector No.54,Gurgaon, Haryana. Thereafter a number of notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were sent to the above cited accused persons for making their presence before the IO but despite repeated reminders they failed to do so. Thereafter a number of notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were sent to the above cited accused persons for making their presence before the IO but despite repeated reminders they failed to do so. The IO vide letter No.479/5-1 dated 02.03.2017 requested the concerned Police Station i.e., Sector No.56, Gurgaon Haryana for tracing the whereabouts of the accused persons including the petitioners and the Incharge Police Station, Sector No.56, Gurgaon vide communication No.35/5-A dated 26.03.2017 stated that the accused persons were not residing at the above mentioned address. That in compliance to the order passed by the court of learned City Court, Jammu under Section 25 of Police Act, a team was constituted by the SP, City South, Jammu vide movement Order No. Rdr/17-5797-99/SPCS dated 04.05.2017 for making arrest of the above cited accused persons. The team visited Gurgaon and found that the Flat No.101-A, Lal Agoon Apartments, Sector No.54, Gurgaon, Haryana was hired by the accused persons for a period of 02 years and after completion of the said period they moved to some unknown destination/place. That the best efforts are being made to conclude the investigation to its logical end. 6. The respondent No. 3 has also filed objections wherein it is stated that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in terms of section 561-A of Cr.P.C. The F.I.R has been registered and investigation is going on with regard to the offence committed by the petitioners to which the petitioners are not participating at all. Hence, they are not entitled to the relief in the present petition. It is further stated that the assertions made in the petition are completely false and contrary to law, and the statements made by the son of the petitioners before different authorities. These assertions are facts which are to be narrated before the investigating officer during the course of investigation and not in the petition under Section 561-A, CrPC. It is prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case has relied upon AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950 case titled Neelu Chopra & Anr. Vs. Bharti; and 2011 (1) JKJ 459 (HC) case titled Prikshit Pathania & ors. Vs. Anuradha Dadwal & ors. It is prayed that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case has relied upon AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950 case titled Neelu Chopra & Anr. Vs. Bharti; and 2011 (1) JKJ 459 (HC) case titled Prikshit Pathania & ors. Vs. Anuradha Dadwal & ors. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in support of his case has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in case titled Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 1 ; and in case titled Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, reported in 1997 AIR (SC) 2465. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the matter. 9. It is apt to reproduce the relevant contents of the FIR No.66/2016 which reads as under: “The applicant is the permanent resident of J&K State and is entitled to protection of all her rights, that the applicant is legally wedded wife of non-applicant No.1 and non applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the father in law, mother in law and brother in law respectively. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant no.1 was solemnized according to rites and rituals in Jammu on 23.11.2015 where non-applicants 2 to 4 played their role as mentioned in the last preceding para. The non-applicant nos.1 to 4 at the time of marriage fraudulently and dishonestly played a foul play with applicant no.1 and her family members and impersonated them as big business tycoon of Delhi having their big bungalows at the address mentioned above. The applicant and her family members after being cheated by the non-applicants fell into the foul play of the non applicants and married the applicant with non applicant no.1 and a hefty amount was spent at the time of arrangement of marriage and the gifts given to the non-applicant no.1 and his family members. It is pertinent to mention here that non applicant nos.1 to 4 at the time of marriage willfully cheated the applicant and his family members by impersonating themselves as business tycoons and respectable citizens of Delhi. It is pertinent to mention here that non applicant nos.1 to 4 at the time of marriage willfully cheated the applicant and his family members by impersonating themselves as business tycoons and respectable citizens of Delhi. After the marriage the applicant accompanied the non-applicants to Delhi at their residential house and within a period of one month the attitude and behavior of non-applicants suddenly changed and they started ill-treating applicant and a number of times thrashed applicant with fists and blows for not bringing enough dowry and started demanding more dowry from the parents of applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that within a period of one month the image as shown by the non-applicant totally changed and it came to light that they were not business tycoons as they impersonated at the time of marriage and even the big bungalow in which they were residing was rental and it was came as a shock to the applicant that they applicant and her family members are cheated by the non-applicants just to get big dowry from the applicant and her family members. That the applicant initially didn’t speak a word thinking that good light will prevail over the non-applicant but the non-applicants’ behavior turned from bad to worse. That on 25th July 2016 the non applicants who were in Jammu along with the applicant threw the applicant out of the matrimonial home and sent her to the parental house and fled back to Delhi and when the parents of the applicant tried to resolve the matrimonial dispute and went to the address of the non-applicants mentioned above it came as a big shock for the family members of the applicant that non-applicant has left the address mentioned above and no whereabouts of the non-applicants was traced. Thus the non-applicants have treated with cruelty with the applicant and more particularly cheated both the applicant and her family members. That the applicant lodged a complaint with Women Cell, Jammu and the Women Cell instead of lodging the FIR forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police forwarded the same to Sr. Superintendent of Police and further Sr. That the applicant lodged a complaint with Women Cell, Jammu and the Women Cell instead of lodging the FIR forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police forwarded the same to Sr. Superintendent of Police and further Sr. Superintendent of Police had forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Railway Road, Civil Line near Nehru Stadium, Gurgaon Haryana to ascertain the whereabouts of the non-applicants but no formal FIR has been lodged till date and the applicant is still moving here and there to get justice. 10. From bare perusal of contents of complaint on the basis of which FIR was lodged, it is evident that complainant and her husband resided at Delhi after marriage. Nothing has been alleged with regard to cruelty as defined u/s 498-A RPC, at Jammu; only in complaint an assertion has been made that on 25th July 2016 the accused persons, who were in Jammu along with the applicant threw the complainant out of the matrimonial home and sent her to the parental house and fled back to Delhi and when the parents of the applicant tried to resolve the matrimonial dispute and went to the address of the non-applicants mentioned above, it gave as a big shock for the family members of the applicant that non-applicants have left the address mentioned above and no whereabouts of the non-applicants were traced. 11. There is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that they ever lived together within territory of Jammu and any type of alleged cruelty took place within jurisdiction of Jammu. No date, time and month has been given in complaint with regard to demand of dowry, which constitute offence of cruelty as defined under section 498-A RPC. General allegations have been leveled against petitioners in this regard. 12. In Neelu Chopra’s case (supra), it is held as under:- “5. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” 13. Further complaint has been cleverly drafted, by showing a single incident at Jammu in order to create an illusion that cause of action has accrued to complainant within jurisdiction of this court. However, there is nothing substantial against the petitioners, from which it can be inferred that any cause of action accrued to complainant at Jammu. Court while dealing with such like case has to consider all other attending circumstances. It is fact that after marriage, complainant and husband remained at Delhi. The incident which has been allegedly committed at Jammu is most improbable. Magistrate before passing the order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on complaint was obliged to go through the allegations levelled in complaint carefully especially when the accused are residents of outside his territorial jurisdiction; calling a person to stand criminal proceeding amount to violation of his fundamental right. It is not disputed that Magistrate has to take cognizance of offence and not of accused. 14. Section 156 and 190 Cr.P.C. are relevant for deciding the real controversy in the matter. These sections read as under:- “156. Investigation into 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 XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial.. Investigation into 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 XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial.. (2) No proceeding of 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. 190. Cognizance of offence by Magistrates. (1) Except as hereinafter provided, any Chief Judicial Magistrate and any other Judicial Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed.” 15. From bare perusal of section 156, it is evident that any officer in charge of a police station can 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 XV. Chapter XV deals with place of inquiry and trial. In terms of Section 177 of the Code, it is Court within whose jurisdiction the place where the offence was committed. In essence, it is the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings against the accused. Normally the expression "cause of action" is used, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression "cause of action" is therefore not a stranger to criminal cases. It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. These variations in etymological expression do not really make the position different. The expression "cause of action" is therefore not a stranger to criminal cases. It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise. Here are certain exceptions to this general rule of trial and inquiry given in subsequent sections; under section 178 government may direct trial to be conducted by any other sessions division or any other place; in terms of section 179, both court in whose jurisdiction offence was committed and in whose jurisdiction consequence of act done ensued. In terms of section 180 provides that if an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence, the first-mentioned offence may also be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done. Similarly there are other situations defined in chapter XV of Cr.P.C. If we read chapter XV with section 156 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that police has generally power to investigate only those cognizable cases, which have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction or can investigate cognizable cases which falls exception given in this chapter. 16. Whenever written complaint is made to the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of offence/s under section 190 of Cr.P.C. Under this section, Magistrate has two options; one is at pre-cognizance stage, by virtue of which he can direct the police to investigate the matter under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Second option is at post-cognizance stage, under which he shall record statement of complainant and witness, if any, and issue summon to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. He has also option under Section 202 Cr.P.C. thereby postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either inquire into the case himself, or, direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by a police officer. The purpose of such inquiry or investigation is to know the truthfulness of allegations. In any case, Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and has to see as to whether he has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance or not. This aspect of territorial jurisdiction is gatherable from facts narrated in complaint. The Magistrate has then to see as to whether facts narrated in complaint are probable or has been drafted to create illusion of cause of action within its territorial jurisdiction. For that purpose Magistrate is to conduct a inquiry in any case. This aspect of matter depends from case to case. 17. Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C cannot direct registration of FIR and investigation thereon to a Station House Officer of a Police Station for the offence which has not been committed within his territorial jurisdiction. 18. In Prikshit Pathania’s case (supra), it is held that; every offence ordinarily has to be enquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed- complaint under Section 498-A RPC filed in court at Jammu while complaint nowhere mentioned that after solemnisation of marriage parties ever lived together within the territory of district Jammu and that any type of cruelty committed upon complainant within territory of district Jammu- Application under Section 561-A for quashment of proceedings under Section 498-A RPC on ground of lack of jurisdiction of court- Held, Court at Jammu has no jurisdiction and continuance of trial would be against interest of justice and would simply permit abuse of process of court. Proceedings under S. 498-A RPC quashed. 19. The law cited in Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar’s case (supra), is not applicable because in this case facts are quite different, and cause of action was pertaining to criminal mis-appropriation or of a criminal breach of trust for which there is specific section 184 of Central Cr.P.C. so not applicable. In case titled Smt. Sujata Mukherjee’s case (supra), although case is under 498-A, but there was specific allegation of assault at parental house by husband on wife, and offence 323 and 506 IPC were also there. In view of above, these laws are not applicable. 20. It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioners are parents-in-law of complainant. In case titled Smt. Sujata Mukherjee’s case (supra), although case is under 498-A, but there was specific allegation of assault at parental house by husband on wife, and offence 323 and 506 IPC were also there. In view of above, these laws are not applicable. 20. It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioners are parents-in-law of complainant. In view of above, this petition is allowed and impugned order of Magistrate as well as FIR so far as petitioners are concerned, are quashed. However, this will not debar the complainant to move complaint before appropriate court.