1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 744 of 2011 1. Hem Singh Saini S/o Shri Ram Charan Singh 2. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Hem Singh Saini Both R/o 18, Shivapuram Colony Civil Lines, Town and District Rampur …..…Petitioners Versus Smt. Meena Saini, W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Saini D/o Shri Mahendra Singh Saini R/o House No. S-73, Shivalik Nagar B.H.E.L, Ranipur, District Haridwar ……….Respondent Mr. Anant Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, present for the respondent . Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 481 of 2010, Meena Saini vs. Sunil Kumar Saini and 2 others, relating to offence punishable under section 406 IPC, pending in the court of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are uncle-in-law and aunt-in-law of respondent no. 3. It is pleaded that respondent herself has moved application under section 12 Hindu Marriage Act, before the Family Court, Haridwar, which is registered as petition no. 333 of 2009, for dissolution of marriage with Sunil Kumar Saini (nephew of the petitioners) , and as a pressure tactics this criminal case has been filed by the respondent. It is also contended that the court at Haridwar has no territorial Jurisdiction with the matter. 4. However, on perusal of the copy of criminal complaint (which is Annex. 3 to the petition) it is clearly mentioned that cheque no. 121787 for an amount of ` 2,50,000/-was given to Hem Singh and Shanti Devi by the father of the respondent at Haridwar, for purchasing the articles of the respondent. The complainant has alleged criminal misappropriation of the amount. 3 5. In the above circumstances, part of cause of action appears to have taken place at Haridwar, and it cannot be said that the Court at Haridwar, is barred from taking cognizance in the matter. Otherwise, also section 177 of Cr.P.C., provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. If said section is read with section 178, it is clear that the court having jurisdiction in local area where part cause of action has arisen, has the jurisdiction to try the offence. 6. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits in the case, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner Hem Singh Saini and Smt. Shanti Devi surrender before the court concerned their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 19.09.2011