Cr.MMO No. 168 of 2010 07.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. The petitioners pray for quashing First Information Report No. 132 of 2009, dated 11.9.2009, lodged under Sections 406, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Baddi which has been instituted by respondent No.3 against the first three petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of First Information Report would show that no cause of action has arisen in Baddi and therefore, the Courts in Himachal have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith & others vs. Inspector of Police and another, AIR 2004 SC 4286 and submits that in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings in Court where they were instituted as it did not disclose the cause of action arose in place where it had been instituted. In that case, the Supreme Court, considering the provisions of Sections 178 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with respect to the place of trial where First Information Report had been lodged, but no cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the proceedings were quashed. In particular, the Court holds: “19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the concerned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to respondent No.2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” This petition is disposed with a direction that the learned trial Magistrate shall first determine the fact as to whether any cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Baddi, for which purpose, the Court shall strictly follow the decision of the Supreme Court, as aforesaid. Petition stands disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge September 07, 2010(ms)