THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10567 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner – accused approaches this Court by invoking the provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, whereby the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points: 1. The petitioner and the de facto complainant lived together in Assam and at no point of time they lived together within the jurisdiction of this Court; 2. The petitioner and the de facto complainant separated in the year 2007 and the complaint is lodged in the year 2010. Hence the complaint is hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.; 3. After receipt of a complaint on an earlier occasion, the police filed a final report stating that the case is closed for lack of evidence. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant has not subjected herself for examination by the police. Subsequently, the present complaint was filed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate after recording sworn statement of the complainant, issued warrants against the petitioners herein. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate should have taken cognisance of the offence only after an enquiry under Section 202(1) amended provisions of Cr.P.C. As far as the first point is concerned, the case cannot be thrown out on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In view of the latest judgment given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, even after separation from the husband, the wife can invoke the jurisdiction in the place where her parents are living and where she resides after separation. As far as the second contention is concerned, i.e. regarding the limitation, the offence under Section 498-A is a continuous one, till they separated by an order of a competent court. Hence, the question of limitation does not arise. As far as the third point is concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the offence without following the procedure under Section 202(1) amended provisions of Cr.P.C. Hence, the present cognisance taken by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the warrants issued against the petitioners are also hereby recalled and the learned Magistrate is directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 202(1) amended provisions of Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 2nd November 2011 Rns