( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482 Cr. P. C for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of FIR No. 1367/2006 registered at PS Malviya nagar or in the alternative for issuance of mandamus for the transfer of the said FIR alongwith the consequent investigation to the jurisdiction of the police Station Ragho Majra Kotwali, District Patiala, Punjab.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have submitted that the above FIR was filed by the complainant under sections 406/498a at PS Malviya Nagar, while perusal of fir would show that no offence was committed within the jurisdiction of NCT of delhi. Respondent-wife alleged that petitioners subjected her to cruelty at matrimonial home in Patiala (Punjab ). Marriage in this case was solemnized in u. P. Neither the marriage was solemnized in Delhi nor the offence was committed in Delhi. The registration of FIR in Delhi at PS Malviya Nagar was contrary to the provisions of sections 177 and 181 (4) of the Cr. P. C. The FIR should be quashed or the same be transferred to the State where offence was committed.

( 3 ) A perusal of FIR lodged at PS Malviya Nagar shows that complainant alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 on 22. 11. 2005 at Shamli, Tehsil Kerana, Muzzafarnagar, U. P. according to Muslim rights. After marriage, she went to matrimonial home at Gurudwara Wali Gali no. 3, Patiala (Punjab ). She stated that behaviour of her husband and in-laws towards her from the very beginning was rude and non-cooperative and they were not happy with the dowry articles given in the marriage and she was taunted for bringing less dowry and Rs. 50,000/-, one scooter and 5 tolas of gold was demanded. No where in the FIR she stated that any part of offence was committed in Delhi. Neither entrustment of dowry articles had taken place in Delhi nor the alleged misappropriation of dowry articles had taken place in Delhi. She filed the FIR with PS Malviya Nagar alleging that she was now living at Hauz rani within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar.

( 4 ) IN (1999) 8 SCC 728 Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of delhi) and another, the question of registration and investigation of an FIR lodged at the place of residence was dealt with and considered by the Supreme court and the Supreme Court made the following observations:-

"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 f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document