Hon'ble BISHNOI, J.—This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.19/2014 lodged at Police Station Women, Bikaner against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. While assailing the impugned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his challenge up to the jurisdiction of the police of District Bikaner to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR. Hence, the only issue for consideration in this criminal misc. petition is whether the Women Police Station, Bikaner can investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned FIR alleging ill treatment by the petitioners after her marriage with the petitioner No.1 at Jaipur. It is alleged in the FIR that after solemnization of her marriage with petitioner No.1 on 09.11.2008 at Jaipur, she was subjected to ill treatment and harassment by the petitioners when she was living with them in her matrimonial home at Jaipur. It is further alleged that the petitioners had demanded money and a car in dowry and when the same were not given to them, all the petitioners abused her with filthy language and tortured her by beating. It is also alleged that ornaments belonging to her were taken by mother-in-law and were not returned. Details of several specific incidents have also been given in the impugned FIR while claiming that the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty committed by the petitioners, however, all the incidents mentioned in the impugned FIR are said to have taken place in matrimonial home at Jaipur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Women Police Station, Bikaner to carry out the investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR while contending that from wholesome reading of the FIR, it is clear that none of the alleged incidents of cruelty, criminal breach of trust and voluntarily causing hurt had taken place at Bikaner, therefore, the Police Station at Bikaner has no jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR as per Sec.177 CrPC. In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 4286; Manish Ratan & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr., (2007) 1 SCC 262 = RLW 2007(1) SC 784 and Bhura Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 2666 as well as of this Court in Dr. Ashok Pasricha & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999(1) R.C.C. 292; Kumari Suman & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2006 CriLJ 4187; Roop Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008(3) R.C.C. 1073; Sameer Mohammad & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 (3) R.C.C. 1343 and Mohammad Ameen & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009(32) Criminal CC 161.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has argued that the offence of cruelty committed by the petitioners is a continuing offence and, therefore, the impugned FIR at Bikaner is also main-tainable because the respondent No.2 is residing at Bikaner in her parental house. It is also contended that as per the provisions of sub-sec.(c) of Sec. 178 CrPC, where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more than one local areas, the police station of any of the local areas is having jurisdiction to investigate into the allegations levelled in the FIR.

6. It is further argued that in the impugned FIR, as the respondent No.2 has specifically alleged that her Stridhan has not been returned to her and at present as the respondent No.2 is residing at Bikaner, the petitioners are required to return her Stridhan at Bikaner, in view of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 181 CrPC, the police station of District Bikaner is very much having territorial jurisdictio