HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 115 of 2009 O R D E R: The 1st petitioner /A1 is husband of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. The Petitioners 2 and 3 /A2 and A3 are two wives of A-1’s father. Marriage of A- 1 with the 2nd respondent took place at Kazipet of Warangal District. Subsequent to marriage, the 2nd respondent lived with her husband at Kazipet. The 2nd respondent’s parents are residents of Mahabubnagar. The 2nd respondent’s marriage took place on 27-01-1999 and since 26-08-2008 she is residing separately from A-1 on the ground that A-1 to A3 necked her out of their house demanding additional dowry. When the 2nd respondent gave report, the Mahabubnagar Town Police registered case in crime No. 135 of 2008 against A-1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC only. But the allegations in the report reveal other offences also. 2. According to the 2nd respondent, at the time of her marriage, her father gave dowry of Rs.50,000/- in cash, 5 tolas of gold and other articles and subsequently, A1 to A3 snatched her gold ornaments and necked her out of their house. It is further alleged that when her minor daughter was studying in Hyderabad, A1 took her away from school without knowledge of the 2nd respondent. Thus, the report reveals other offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act and Indian Penal Code also. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that cause of action for the case arose at Kazipet, Warangal District and no part of cause of action arose at Mahabubnagar and that therefore, the Mahabubnagar Police have no jurisdiction to register the case and to investigate into the case. It is for the police to investigate and find out whether any part of cause of action for the offence disclosed in report given by the 2nd respondent arose within Mahabubnagar limits. In case no part of cause of action arose within Mahabubnagar, then the Investigating Officer has to transfer the crime to the police having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said crime for investigation. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that false case was foisted by the 2nd respondent as A1 filed OP for restitution of conjugal rights at Warangal against her. Truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the report cannot be gone into in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the Investigating Officer to find out the same during investigation and to decide whether charge sheet has to be filed in the court or whether the case has to be referred as false. It cannot be said in this petition that this case is filed as a counter blast for the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent is now residing at Hyderabad and is not residing at Mahabubnagar. Present residence of the 2nd respondent has no relevance in deciding as to where cause of action for the case arose. 5. The decision in T.Balaji Rao Vs. State of A.P.[1] cannot be applied to the present case at this stage during investigation, because the said decision was rendered after the Court taking cognizance of the charge sheet. 6. Hence the criminal petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 23-09-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2006(2) ALT(Crl.) 62 (A.P.)