1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to quash Annexure A Final Report in crime No.913/2010 of Thrissur Town West Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498(A), 506 (ii) r/w. 34 IPC by invoking inherent jurisdiction. The above crime was registered on a complaint filed by the second respondent in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur which was forwarded to the Thrissur Town West Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. The petitioners contended that they are innocent and if trial is proceeded it will be a mere abuse of the process of court. More over the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur has no jurisdiction to entertain Annexure B complaint and Annexure A final report.

2. The undisputed facts are that the second respondent married the first petitioner on 10.11.2002 as per customary rites at Thrissur and after that they resided together for two days in her ancestral house at Thrissur. The negotiation of the marriage was initiated and settled by the parents of both parties and after the marriage they resided in a flat at Pune where the first petitioner is permanently settled and afterwards in Mumbai, where he is working. Her allegation is that while residing at Mumbai, petitioners ill-treated her both physically and mentally demanding more amount as dowry. While so, a child was born to them on 09.09.2003 with cerebral palsy. Finally on 12.10.2009 the first petitioner expelled the second respondent from his residence at Chennai. In this circumstance she came to Thrissur, stayed with her parents, and the subsequent mediation talk was also failed. Hence she filed Annexure B complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur which was forwarded to the Town West Police Station, Thrissur for investigation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Smt.Nalini Chithambaram contended that none of the incidents happened at Thrissur since after the marriage both of them resided at Pune and Mumbai (except for two days in the ancestral house at Thrissur). When matrimonial offences are alleged to have occurred outside the local jurisdiction of the courts in Kerala, the courts in Kerala have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. In the year 2009 October, 2nd respondent left her matrimonial home, after that she filed a complaint on 08.09.2010 which is an afterthought. The reason for the delay is not properly explained in Annexure B complaint. He relied on the decisions reported in Bhura Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. [(2008) 11 SCC 103], Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai [(2004) 8 SCC 100], Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] and Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 299].

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent Adv. S. Rajeev contended that all ingredients attracting the offences are properly alleged in the complaint. Moreover the matrimonial offence is a continuing offence and other offences were committed while they are residing together. Gold and other utensils were entrusted to the petitioners at Vadakara. That entrustment is sufficient to attract criminal breach of trust as alleged in the petition. Since the offence is a continuing offence, separate pleading is not necessary for explaining that aspect which is saved under Section 472 of the Code. When a prima facie case is made out in a complaint there is no reason to disturb Annexure A.

5. The jurisdiction of the criminal court in inquiry and trial are defined under Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus:

"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.-Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial.-

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) where an offence is committed partly