RAM AUTAR SINGH, J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Agrawal and Sri V.K. Rai, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for opposite party No. 1 at length and perused the record. This application has been moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet submitted in criminal case No. 3329/9 of 2008 arising out of case crime No. 93 of 2008, under sec­tions 498-A, 323, 313 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Manila Thana Moradabad, District Moradabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Moradabad. The learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that an F.I.R. was lodged by opposite party No. 2 on 12.6.2008 alleging therein that she was married with applicant No. 3 Vipul Gupta on 2.12.2007 and there­after she went to Banglore with her hus­band where she came to know about the mean mentality of her husband and he started to make demand of dowry and deal her with cruelty in pursuance of demand of dowry. The opposite party No. 2 had also moved an application to S.H.O. of Police Micro Layout Police Station Bangalore City. The learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that a bare perusal of Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit completely belies the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and exis­tence of injuries as mentioned in fake medi­cal report was manufactured at Moradabad on 31.5.2008. She also made allegations about forcible abortion but the medical re­port did not corroborate these allegations. The opposite party No. 2 was examined thrice by the Investigating Officer on 14.6.2008, 18.6.2008 and 19.10.2008 respec­tively and he submitted charge sheet in a mechanical manner and cognizance thereon was also taken in arbitrary manner.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appli­cants has further contended that a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12032 of 2008 was also moved by applicants No. 1 and 2 with prayer to stay the arrest which was allowed and their arrest was stayed. The statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the application moved at Ban­glore as well as F.I.R. lodged at Moradabad have been found full of contradictions and they do not support each other. The learned Counsel for the appli­cants has further contended that assuming the allegations contained in the F.I.R. to be true, even then neither the Courts at Moradabad has territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance over the charge sheet nor the police of Mahila Thana, Moradabad was empowered to investigate the case and submit a charge-sheet and thus investiga­tion was conducted without jurisdiction and cognizance over the charge sheet was also taken without jurisdiction, because the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law observing in various decisions that offence under section 498-A is not a continuing offence and thus it would be tried by the Court having jurisdiction where it is committed. The learned Counsel for the applicants has further contended that this fact is not disputed that applicants No. 1 and 2 have been residing at Delhi and applicant No. 3 resides at Bangalore and in view of the in­jury report the victim was not having these injuries at the time when she left her hus­band's house at Banglore on 30.5.2008 and when she came to Moradabad on 31.5.2008, the injury report was got manufactured with a view to give colour to her version narrated in the F.I.R. after legal advice with ulterior motive. The medical examination was conducted on 31.5.2008 at Moradabad and the delay of 12 days in lodging F.I.R. could not be explained either in the F.I.R. or elsewhere. The prosecution story is a bundle of lies which does not stand cor­roborated by any evidence and charge-sheet was submitted without proper inves­tigation at Bangalore i.e. place of the al­leged incident and thus the Court below failed to exercise the discretion judicially while the said Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
(3.) THE applicant No. 1, Gauri Shanker Gupta has filed his affidavit alongwith an-nexures in support of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. The opposite party No. 2, Smt. Riya Gupta alias Richa Agrawal has also filed counter affidavit controverting the allegations made in the affidavit of Sri Gauri Shanker Gupta alleging that the Court at Moradabad has territorial juris­diction to take cognizance on the charge sheet, because her engagement with appli­cant No. 3 was solemnized on 25.8.2007 in Hotel Paradise at Moradabad and on that occasion on the basis of demand made by the applicants, a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/- in cash alongwith gold ornaments and valu­able gifts were given to them at Moradabad. On 11.6.2008 the applicants arrived at her father's fitness center situ­ated at Harpal Nagar, Moradabad and made demand of additional dowry of Rs. 8 lacs. On 15.6.2008 the applicants further came to Moradabad, threatened opposite party No. 2 and asked her to withdraw the case against them. On 15.7.2008 the appli­cants again came to Moradabad for exert­ing pressure on her through some local politicians and ultimately they were ar­rested in Circuit House, Moradabad on 16.7.2008. Shri Pabhat Kumar Agrawal, father of opposite party No. 2 in his state­ment under section 161 Cr.P.C. categori­cally narrated the entire incident which took place at Moradabad and therefore the Courts at Moradabad got full territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the police of Manila Thana. Moradabad.;