The petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them by the respondent No.1 -Police in Crime No.234/2017 for the offences punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two fold contentions.

Firstly, respondent No.1-Suddaguntepalya police have no territorial jurisdiction to register the case and to investigate into the matter. The marriage between the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 was performed in Nagpur. The parties were residing in Delhi. The petitioners are the permanent residents of New Delhi. The offences are alleged to have taken place at Delhi. No part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of Suddaguntepalya Police Station. Therefore, in view of section 177 of Cr.P.C., registration of the case and consequent investigation by the Suddaguntepalya Police Station is without jurisdiction.

Secondly, the registration of FIR and investigation undertaken by the respondent No.1 -Police is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. 2017 SCC Online 821.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Another (2017 SCC Online SC 821)

2. Bhura Ram & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Another [(2008) 11 SCC 103]

3. Y.Abraham Ajith & Others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Another [(2004) 8 SCC 100]

4. Pandurang Katti & Another vs. State of Karnataka & Another (MANU/KA/0381/2005)

4. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of Suddaguntepalya Police Station. Respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 were residing in Bengaluru and during this period, respondent No.2 was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty. There are specific allegations that a demand was made when she was in Bengaluru and therefore, it is within the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 -Police to register the case as well as to investigate into the alleged offences.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. A.Ravishankar Prasad & Others, Crl.A.No.108285 of 2009 D.D. 15.05.2009, (2009) 6 SCC 351;

2. State of Haryana & Others vs. ChBhajan Lal & Others, Civil Appeal No.5412 of 2009 D.D.21.11.1990, AIR 1992 SC 604.

5. Considered the submissions. Perused the records and the decisions relied on by the parties.

Coming to the first contention urged by the petitioners, it is pertinent to refer to the allegations made in the complaint. In the complaint, respondent No.2 has given her address at Bengaluru. She has specifically stated that, at the time of contracting marriage, she was working in a premier MNC at Bengaluru and marriage was fixed with accused No.1 who was then working as a Director of a MNC at Bengaluru. Further in para 8, it is stated that within a month from the date of marriage on 24.12.2016, accused Nos.1 to 3 conveyed their financial demand to her for Rs.10,00,000/to buy a new car in a written format in the form of a Whatsapp message in Bengaluru. Further she has stated that while staying in Bengaluru, she was treated with utmost cruelty for not honouring their financial demands. In para 11, she has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 had driven her crazy by sending Whatsapp messages at her shared accommodation at Bengaluru in a span of 60 days.

6. Thus there are overwhelming circumstances to hold that part of cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru. If for any reason, in the course of investigation, the respondent No.1-Police come to the conclusion that the offences have taken place beyond the limits of the respondent No.1-Police, it is always open for respondent No.1 -Police to transfer the investigation to the jurisdi