HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.P.No.5087 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners-accused seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.768 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent-complainant was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 19.11.1999 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent gave an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs and other articles worth about Rs.5 Lakhs towards dowry. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent and A1 left to United States of America, where A1 was working. Thereafter, A1 started harassing the 2nd respondent both mentally and physically for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards additional dowry. It is stated that the 2nd respondent gave birth to a female child. It is further stated that A1 harassed the 2nd respondent at the instigation of petitioners-A2 to A5, A7 and A8 herein for transfer of properties of the 2nd respondent in his name. On the basis of the report lodged by the 2nd respondent, the police registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2006 and after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 498-A, 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal and the same was numbered as C.C.No.768 of 2006. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, submits that the allegations in the charge sheet disclose that A-1 alleged to have harassed the 2nd respondent-complainant at United States of America, in fact no part of offence is committed in India, and as such the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the offences. He further submits that there is a bald allegation against the petitioners that they instigated accused No.1 to harass the 2nd respondent for transfer of her property in favour of accused No.1. Per contra, Sri K.Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, submits that the petitioners herein filed discharge petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.608 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 06.09.2007. He further submits that as against the dismissal of discharge petition, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, but, however, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Admittedly, the present Criminal Petition was received by the Registry on 30.08.2007 and the same was listed before this Court on 31.08.2007. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date of filing of the present criminal petition, the discharge petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.608 of 2007 was pending before the trial Court, since the same was dismissed on 06.09.2007. Having chosen to file the said petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, the petitioners should not have approached this Court and filed the present petition. May be it is true that the said discharge petition was dismissed on 06.09.2007, but as on the date of filing of the present criminal petition, the said discharge petition filed by the petitioners is very much pending before the trial Court. In my considered view, the petitioners cannot maintain parallel proceedings. Further as against the dismissal of the said discharge petition, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2008 before the appellate Court, but for the reasons best known to them, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence I find no merit in this petition. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ___________​____________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17.06.2010 Gsn.