- (1.)Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 184/2010 registered with Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi by respondent No.2 under Sections 406/498A/376/420/506/120B IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.)A perusal of the cause list reveals that upon a petition being filed by three other co-accused for quashing of the same FIR being Crl.M.C. No. 864/201, another learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 08 th August, 2011. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Learned APP, on instruction from the Investigating Officer SI Kiran Sood, P.S. DIU, South District submits that on completion of investigation of FIR No. 184/2010, P.S. Mehrauli, which is sought to be quashed, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners No. 1 & 2 and the petitioner No. 3 has not been named as an accused in the charge sheet. He further submits that learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the petitioners No. 1 & 2. Since the offences complained of in the FIR are triable in accordance with warrant trial procedure, the petitioners No. 1 & 2 obviously, would get an opportunity of being heard on the point of charge under Section 239 CrPC. As the equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, particularly when, the entire charge sheet is available to the learned Trial Judge, who will have advantage of going through the entire evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Petition is accordingly dismissed. I am sure that all the pleas on facts and law taken up by the petitioners No. 1 & 2 shall be considered and decided on merits by the learned Magistrate while deciding the issue on the point of charge."

(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case Delhi Police has no territorial jurisdiction to register, investigate or proceed with the aforesaid FIR as all the allegations pertain to the period when respondent No. 2-complainant and petitioners were abroad. He further submits that in the event, the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of Section 239 Cr.P.C. then it would amount to the petitioners being forced to invoke Cr.P.C., which according to him is inapplicable.