1. The petitioners have exclusively invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to pray for quashing the complaint which is registered as F.I.R. I-C.R.No. 92 of 2008 at Jaipur City (South) Mahila Thana, Rajasthan. The complaint is made for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the complainant's husband and his parents and it alleges series of events occurring at several places in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

2. Since the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court is required to be addressed first, before assuming jurisdiction and issuing process, the facts relevant for that purpose may be culled out and summarized. According to the petition, petitioner No.1, the husband, was selected for Indian Administrative Service (IAS) of Gujarat Cadre in the year 2004 and respondent No.1-wife, the original complainant, was selected for IAS of Jammu & Kashmir Cadre in the year 2005. They married at Jaipur on 17.9.2005, immediately after which the husband returned to Ahmedabad and the wife went to Massoorie. They practically pursued their careers separately till February 2006 as the husband joined his service in Gujarat and the wife underwent her training in Massoorie and went on Bharat Darshan Tour. Thereafter, they stayed together for ten months during which the disputes started and, on 16.9.2008, divorce petition came to be filed by the husband in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar. As a counter-blast, the impugned complaint was filed on 24.9.2008 in Rajasthan because the father of the complainant is a highly placed influential person in the State of Rajasthan, according to the petition. It is alleged by the petitioners that, while the complainant is also posted in Gujarat, she could not have remained silent when several alleged incidents were happening over three years and hence the complaint was, ex-facie, an afterthought and a frivolous attempt at achieving her ulterior motives by harassing the petitioners by showing her address in the FIR to be in Jaipur City.

3. While addressing his arguments with regard to the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, learned counsel Mr.Gandhi relied upon the provisions of sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., even as section 482 of the Code is not invoked, and the provisions of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution and submitted that, since most of the alleged events constituting the offence are alleged to have occurred in Gujarat, they are required to be investigated and tried in Gujarat and the parties on both sides also being resident of Gujarat, this Court was required to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground of the cause of action, wholly or partly, arising in Gujarat. He relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2000 SC 2966] and emphasized the following observations made therein:

"Per : Thomas, J. (concurring)

"8. .......Judicial pronouncements have accorded almost a uniform interpretation to the said compendious expression even prior to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution as to mean "the bundle of facts which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court.

"13. ......We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another State or by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence therein. The place of residence of the person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of action in the particular writ petition. The High Court before which the writ petition is filed must