Satish Rathod, r/o.Andheri(East) Mumbai.2] It has been contended that the first informant Smt. Sushamaw/o.Satish Rathod approached to the Cantonment Police Station on9.10.2015 and ventilated the grievances that her marriage was solemnizedon 7/5/2015 with the applicant Satish Dharmu Rathod, at Kandhar.After themarriage, she joined the company of the husband for cohabitation atmatrimonial home located at Kandhar and thereafter at Mumbai.Thehusband Satish, his parents and brothers all were residing jointly at Mumbai.According to complainant Sushama, while cohabitation at matrimonial home,she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the applicant onaccount of demand of money as well as domestic cause.The husband Satishwas unemployed and has a habit of smoking as well as drinking liquor.Theinmates of the matrimonial home maltreated the complainant mentally and ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {3} crapln 477.16.odtphysically.Eventually, she left the matrimonial home, came to Aurangabadand started residing with her parents.According to theapplicants, allegations made in the FIR are false, malafide and notappreciable at all.The contents of the FIR are all fabricated and after-thought.There was no ill-treatment or harassment to the complainantSushama at matrimonial home but the FIR came to be filed in order to causemental and physical harassment to the applicants.JUDGMENT : ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)1] The applicant moved the present application, invoking the remedyunder Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the FIR vide Crime No.338 of 2015, registered at Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad underSection 498-A and 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.The present complaint isfiled by the first informant Smt. Sushama w/o.Thereafter, she preferred thecomplaint to initiate the proceedings against the applicant for the offence ofcruelty and criminal intimidation etc. Pursuant to the FIR, the police ofCantonment Police Station registered the Crime No. 338 of 2015 and set thecriminal law in motion.The I.O. proceeded to record the statement ofwitnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::3] Meanwhile, the applicants moved the present application underSection 482 of Cr.P.C. and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR,filed by the complainant Smt. Sushama Satish Rathod.The complainant Sushmais not interested to cohabit with the husband Satish.Her character prior tothe marriage was also suspicious and the parents performed her marriageagainst her will.The complainant Sushma given threats of self-immolation tothe applicants.In view of the aggressive demeanour and conduct ofcomplainant Sushma, the applicants approached to the higher authoritiesand police personnel and lodged complaints against the complainant Sushmaand others.Therefore, the impugned complaint, registered against theapplicants is malafide and not sustainable in the eye of law.It has alsobeen alleged that the police of cantonment police station, Aurangabad have ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {4} crapln 477.16.odtno territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime as no part of crime isshown committed within the territorial limits of Cantonment Police Station,Aurangabad.The alleged office of cruelty and criminal intimadation etc. areshown committed at Kandhar and Mumbai.Therefore, the FIR registered atCantonment Police Station, Aurangabad deserves to be quashed and set asidefor lack of jurisdiction to investigate into the crime.4] We have given anxious consideration to the argumentscanvassed on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the documentsproduced on record.After appreciating the recitals of the FIR, we find thatthere are prima facie circumstances on record, depicting commission ofoffence of cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A of the IPC.There areallegations about the voluntary causing hurt and criminal intimidation ascontemplated under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.The allegationsnurtured in the FIR made out prima facie offences as alleged against theapplicants.The recitals in the FIR, if considered at its face value andaccepted in its entirety, it reflects that the offences, as alleged against theapplicants are made out for investigation into the crime.There areallegations of mental and physical cruelty as well as unlawful demand ofmoney on the part of applicant/accused.The complainant Sushama wassubjected to ill-treatment to meet the unlawful demands.Therefore,considering the nature of allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant, weare not prepared to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. infavour of the applicants to quash and set aside the alleged FIR.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::Hence, we proceed to reject theprayer of the applicant for quashing and setting aside the FIR.7] However, learned counsel for the applicants harped on thecircumstances that the police of cantonment police station have noterritorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime, as no pat of the cause ofaction arose in Aurangabad.The learned counsel therefore submitted that the alleged FIR isrequired to be quashed and set aside or may be transferred to the concernedpolice station, at Kandhar or Mumbai.According to learned counsel forapplicants, the police of cantonment police station, ought to have registeredthe crime under "ZERO" number and same has to be transmitted to theconcerned police station at Mumbai or Kandhar, having territorial jurisdictionto deal with the matter.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::8] We find no force in the arguments propounded on behalf of thelearned counsel for the applicants to quash the entire investigationconducted by the Cantonment Police Station on the ground of lack ofterritorial jurisdiction.The powers of investigation into cognizable offencesare contained in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. The Section 154 of the saidChapter deals with the information in cognizable offences, whereas, Section ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {7} crapln 477.16.odt156, deals with investigation into cognizable offence.These provisions ofCr.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::10] In view of the settled principles of law mentioned above, weare unable to persuade ourselves to appreciate contentions put forth onbehalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, to cause interference in theinvestigation of the crime by the cantonment police station.At this stage,when investigation is in progress, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed andset aside on the alleged ground that, as no part of offence is committedwithin the territorial jurisdiction of Aurangabad police Station, the I.O. hasno jurisdiction to investigate into it.The law does not permit to cause anyinterference in the investigation by exercising inherent powers under Section482 of Cr.P.C. Section 156(2) of Cr.P.C. contains an embargo that noproceeding of police officer shall be called in question on the ground that hehas no territorial jurisdiction.We reiterate that the material collected bythe I.O. cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at the conclusion thatthe police officers of particular police station, would not have territorialjurisdiction.11] In the above premises, we are of the considered opinion thatthe circumstances on record categorically demonstrate that the allegationsmade in the FIR, if taken into consideration at its face value, and acceptedin its entirety, prima facie constitute an offence of cruelty as envisaged ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {10} crapln 477.16.odtunder Section 498A of I.P.C. against the applicants.The contentionspropounded on behalf of the applicants against first informant Sau.Sushamarequire judicial enquiry to examine the correctness and truthfulness ofaspersions casted on behalf of applicants.Hence, the Criminal Applicationstands dismissed.No orders as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays forcontinuation of interim relief which was in force till this date.Hence, the prayer stands rejected.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code