1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, challenges order dated 14/9/2011 passed by the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the petition filed by one Rajeev Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3 herein (original petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in the Special Leave Petition No. 9092 of 2011) under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of FIR lodged by respondent 2 against them under sections 498 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

2-A. Rajeev Bhandari is the husband of respondent 2. Appellant 1 is the mother-in-law and appellants 2 and 3 are the sisters-in-law of respondent 2.

3. In the special leave petition, Rajeev Bhandari was arraigned as petitioner 1. However, on 9.12.2011, this Court dismissed the special leave petition insofar as Rajeev Bhandari is concerned. Therefore, today, the challenge to the impugned order can be said to be raised only by appellants 1, 2, and 3.

4. It is necessary to give a gist of the facts. On 1.4.2009, respondent 2 lodged the FIR in question at Thana Mahila, District Jodhpur against Rajeev Bhandari, his father Meghraj Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3 alleging offences under sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. In the FIR, she stated that she got married to Rajeev Bhandari on 9.7.2002 at Jodhpur, her father gave cash of Rs. 1,25,000/- and gold and silver ornaments, other articles, clothes, household utensils, etc. to her husband’s family; she resided at Ahmedabad with her husband after her marriage, her husband behaved well for about two and half months, after that,the behaviour of Rajeev Bhandari, his father and the appellants 1, 2, and 3 changed, they started harassing her because she had brought less dowry, they did not give her sufficient food to eat, in her absence, appellants 1, 2, and 3 used to scatter her clothes and belongings and they demanded cash of Rs. 6 lakhs. It is further stated in the complaint that on 26.1.2003, all of them harassed her and asked her to bring Rs. 6 lakhs and gold and silver items from her father and threatened her that if she does not bring them, she will suffer. According to her, she suffered mental shock because of this behaviour and, hence, she left the matrimonial home in the morning of 27.1.2003. Then, her husband Rajeev Bhandari came searching for her and assured that there will be no demand of dowry. Due to this assurance, she again went to the matrimonial home. However, there was no difference in the behaviour of Rajeev Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3. The dowry demand persisted. She, therefore, phoned her father and told him to come to Ahmedabad. On 14.2.2003, her father came to Ahmedabad and took her to Jodhpur on 15.2.2003. Since then, she has been staying with her parents. According to her, her husband Rajeev Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and3 have not contacted her thereafter. She contacted them and asked them to return her original degree certificate, silver and gold ornaments and other articles. But, they ignored her request. She, therefore, requested the police to take legal action against her husband Rajeev Bhandari, her father-in-law Meghraj Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3. It must be stated here that during the pendency of the proceedings, Megharaj Bhandari died.

5. Before the Rajasthan High Court, it was submitted that a perusal of the FIR shows that respondent 2 had left her matrimonial home in the year 2003 and was residing in Jodhpur. No offence can be said to have been committed by the appellants in the territorial jurisdiction of Jodhpur. Hence, registration of FIR at Mahila Thana, Jodhpur is illegal. It was also urged that there is delay in lodging the FIR. On these grounds, it was prayed that FIR be quashed. The Rajasthan High Court was of the view that part of cause of action had accrued at Jodhpur. It was held that since the offence is a continuous offence, FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of jurisdiction. The High Court also refused to quash the FIR on the ground of delay.

6. Before we refer to the