The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence of cruelty under section 498-A RPC cannot be a continuing offence and the court discussed the legal principles related to territorial jurisdiction for trial of offences.

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.), petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint titled "Shruti Jain Vs Narinder Jain, bearing complaint no.nil/complaint date of institution 23.09.2017 pending before learned Sub Judge Jammu, under section 498-A/405/406 RPC read with 109 of Ranbir Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one of the common relative of petitioners and respondent mediated the marriage between the son of the petitioners and respondent. The marriage between the two was solemnized on 04.02.2013. It is stated that the respondent never wanted to marry with the son of the petitioners and it was under the pressure and coercion of her parents that she married the son of the petitioners, which was solemnized without any dowry. It is stated that son of the petitioners is working in a company in United States of America and soon after the marriage he left to USA to resume his services on 18.02.2013. On 14.03.2013, respondent-Shruti also left India for USA. The son of the petitioners reported to them that the respondent is not comfortable in staying with him and always looking for a reason to fight with him. It is stated that respondent could not adjust with the son of the petitioners and she ultimately left USA on 29.04.2013 and since 29.04.2013 the petitioners as well as their son have not met respondent or her family members and there is an unequivocal breakdown of the marriage between the son of the petitioners and the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner’s states that the respondent has filed a false and frivolous criminal complaint against the petitioners under section 498A/405/406/409 RPC read with Section 109 of Ranbir Panel Code. The respondent presented the complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Sub Judge Jammu for disposal under law. It is stated that the learned Sub Judge while entertaining the complaint recorded the statement of respondent and took the cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioners. It is further stated that the said criminal proceedings against the petitioners is sheer abuse of process of law.

4. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid complaint have challenged the same on the following grounds :

That bare reading of the complaint as a whole and allegation made in the complaint, even if, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety no prudent person can lead to the conclusion that the present complaint is maintainable in the present form; that the allegations made in complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can lead to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the present complaint; that the impugned orders and the proceeding pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Jammu are sheer abuse of the process of law, inasmuch as, the court below has failed to meet with the basic requirement of the Sections 498-A/405/406 RPC read with 109 of RPC; that the impugned orders and the proceeding pending are against the mandate of law; that the court below failed to appreciate that to establish an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust in Section 405 of RPC, the ingredients are entrusting any person with the property or with any dominion over the property; that the present criminal proceeding against petitioner is attended with mala fide and are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreck vengeances on petitioners with a view to spite them with the personal and private grudge. That court below lacks territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint, as alleged entrustment of dowry items has taken place at Panchkula; the parties stayed at USA or Panchkula after marriage and nothing has happened within the jurisdiction of this court.

5. I have hear