IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1312 OF 2009 Between: Dr.B.Obulapathi … PETITIONER And 1. Dr. Bodagala Usha Kiran 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1312 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. in C.C.No.511 of 2008, on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of the I Class for Excise Offences, Guntur. The first respondent is wife of the petitioner. Their marriage took place at Guntur. Subsequent to the marriage, the first respondent joined the petitioner at Kadapa where both of them led marital life. Both are dentists. They have one child. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that entire allegations in the charge sheet as well as statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose that no part of the cause of action took place at Guntur and that the entire alleged incidents occurred at Kadapa. But, apart from the incidents which occurred at Kadapa, it is alleged that after she coming away to her parents’ house, she gave representation to the District Legal Services Authority and that the petitioner and some unknown persons phoned up to her and threatened her with dire consequences and also phoned up to her mother and demanded for rupees one crore and that their family friend Y. Laxmi Devi also contacted and informed her mother about the petitioner demanding the said amount. No doubt, the place where the telephone calls were received, is not specifically mentioned in the report. The first respondent’s father is working at Adilabad. It is contended that it may be either at Guntur or at Adilabad. 3. The question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. Unless evidence is recorded in this matter, it cannot be decided that Guntur Court has no territorial jurisdiction at all to entertain the case. In any event, it will be open to the petitioner to raise this contention before the lower Court after recording of the prosecution evidence so that the lower Court would decide the point of territorial jurisdiction. In case the lower Court feels that there was no territorial jurisdiction for that Court to entertain the petitioner, then it would be open for the lower Court to return the charge sheet for presentation to proper Court. This question cannot be decided in this revision petition. 4. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed subject to above observations. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 12, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1312 OF 2009 August 12, 2010 KL