The Hon'ble High court has inherent Powers to Quash the FIR U/S 482 Cr.PC. However this power is very sparingly used. So if you have real proofs, that the FIR is false. You can move to the High court.
For Challenging the Jurisdiction, the following Case laws will be helpful
Case Law for Support:
Case No 1: The mere fact that the 2nd respondent resides at Kakinada cannot give jurisdiction to magistrate at Kakinada to take cognizance of an offence U/S 498 A of IPC. In absence of the some act subjecting her to cruelty have occurred taken place at Kakinada. That is the reason why the 2nd respondent has alleged in second complaint that the 1st and 2nd petitioners came to Kakinada during January 1991 to get over the question of Jurisdiction.”…. Rajaram Venkatesh V/S. The State of A.P., 1993 (2) crimes 209 at P 225” Tajpal Bajaj V Neeru, 1994 (3) crimes 145 at P. 147 (P&H).
Case No 2: The petitioner never resided with the complainant at Jind and hence they had no occasion to subject her to cruelty at Jind. The Offence under Sec 498 A if at all was committed at kaithal and not at Jind. In this situation the court at Jind has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant wife U/S 498 A….. “ Jatinder Singh V State of Haryana, 1993 (2) Crimes 595 at P 596: 1993 (2) All India Cr. L.R. at P 230.
Case No 3: Chapter III of the CRPC deals with the Jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. In this chapter, there is no provision whereby the offence committed under Section 498-A, I.P.C, at some other place could be tried and inquired into by a court where the complainant was residing, even if the complainant was residing out of the jurisdiction of the court, where the offence was alleged to have been committed. The Trial Magistrate interpretation in this regard is patently wrong and illegal….. Ramesh Rana V Smt. Kiran Sharma, 1998 (1) Shim L.C 381 at P 383.
Case No 4: Section 498 – A, of the Indian Penal code provide that whoever be the husband or the relatives of the husband subjects such a woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. Cruelty has been defined in this section and the allegations made in complaint do make out a case that wife was treated with cruelty. But all these acts of cruelty are said to have taken place in Madhya Pradesh. It is not open to file a complaint under section 498 –A of the Indian Penal code at Place A where the acts of the cruelty against her were committed at Place B……..Hinsraj Chaudhary V Smt. Sarita, 1992 J.I.C 679 at P 681: Hasan Singh V/S Satet of Rajasthan. 1999 (1) W.L.C 575 at P 578 (Raj.)
Case No 5: The allegation of harassment and cruel treatment in the present case is after marriage when the complainant started living at her in laws, house situated a Paniwal, tehsil and district Abohar (Punjab). It is not the case of the complainant that she was subjected to cruelty of harassment at lakhimpur, tehsil pilibanga, district hanumangarh (Rajasthan). In this vies of the matter, the Trial court at Pilibanga is having no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the impugned order framing charge against the Petitioner for the offence of 498 – A of IPC cannot be sustained….