JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. In this proceeding U/s.482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made to quash the criminal proceeding in connection with Joda P.S. Case No.140 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.620 of 2017 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Barbil. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for opposite party State. 3. Facts necessary for the present purpose are filtered out thus; The opposite party no.2, as informant, lodged F.I.R. on 21.11.2017 before I.I.C., Joda Police Station which was registered as Joda P.S. Case No.140 dtd.21.11.2017 for offence U/s.498(A), 354-A, 376, 511, 307, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and U/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation was ensued. It is submitted that investigation is yet to be completed. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 while petitioner no.2 is the brother of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 is his relative. As per F.I.R. the informant had married Arun Kumar Bhanja (petitioner no.1), resident of village Bonaigarh under Bonai police station on 7.7.2016. While staying at matrimonial house, the informant opposite party no.2 was tortured and petitioner no.2 attempted to commit rape. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that whatever incidents alleged to have been made in the F.I.R. by the informant are stated to have occurred within the jurisdiction of Bonai police station where her husband s house situates and as the registration of F.I.R. at Joda police station was beyond its territorial jurisdiction, the F.I.R. should be quashed. 4-(a). On this score, as to whether on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction during continuance of investigation, the F.I.R. is to be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Hon ble Apex Court reported in Bhura Ram & Ors. Vrs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,2008 40 OCR 841 (SC) In that decision, Hon ble Apex Court, held that the offence U/s.498(A) I.P.C. was a continuing offence and in the facts that charge already framed in the court, stated that the case could not be tried by the Court where no part of offence was committed and accordingly directed to return the complaint for filing in the appropriate Court. 5. In the case at hand, the investigation is under progress and thereby it can be said that the stage of taking cognizance has not yet reached. 6. 5. In the case at hand, the investigation is under progress and thereby it can be said that the stage of taking cognizance has not yet reached. 6. In the above premises it is profitable to refer a decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vrs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 728 wherein their Lordships have held as follows:- 8. In our view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The limited question is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. From the discussion made by the learned Judge, it appears that learned Judge has considered the provisions applicable for criminal trial. The High court arrived at the conclusion by appreciating the allegations made by the parties that the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the FIR lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC arose at Patiala. In our view, the findings given by the High Court are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because: (1) The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR 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 FIR 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. In view of the above ratio laid down by Hon ble Apex Court, as the investigation is yet to be completed, quashing of proceeding, as prayed, does not arise. As such interference of this court U/s.482 Cr.P.C. is uncalled for. Accordingly the CRLMC stands dismissed.