IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU TR.CRIMINAL PETITION No.53 of 2010 DATE:24.08.2010 Between: Anne Sravan Kumar and others …… Petitioners And: State rep. By Public Prosecutor and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU TR.CRIMINAL PETITION No.53 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 who are accused of offences under Section 498-A, 494, 109, 120-B IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with others seek transfer of C.C. No.699 of 2009 from the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad to any Court at Vijayawada on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction for the Court at Hyderabad and also on the ground of convenience as well as threat to them. So far as threat perspective is concerned, there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant that if they go to Vijayawada, then there is threat for them and that previous attack on her brothers was covered by the print media also. 2) Territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. Even as per allegations in the charge sheet, marriage took place at Sikh village, Secunderabad between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner, where the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act are stated to have taken place. Therefore, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action in this case occurred at Hyderabad. In case the case is transferred from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, then all the witnesses as well as the defacto- complainant have to go to Vijayawada for giving evidence. As pointed out earlier, there is apprehension for them to go to Vijayawada because of the previous incidents. Further, if the case is transferred to Vijayawada, then the police have to attend on every date of adjournment of the case at Vijayawada from Hyderabad. Having regard to all these circumstances, the convenience is more at Hyderabad than at Vijayawada. I do not find any valid or legal ground to transfer the case from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. 2) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 24, 2010 KSH