THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2835 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ﬁled by the petitioners, A-1 to A-4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.384 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District arising out of Crime No.152 of 2005 of Chillakallu Police Station, Krishna District registered for the oﬀences under Sections 498-A and 323 read with 34 IPC, based on the complaint of respondent No.1 – de facto complainant. 2. The petitioners are husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the de facto complainant. 3. The allegations against the petitioners are that after four months of the marriage of the de facto complainant with petitioner No.1, all the petitioners harassed her physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry and petitioner No.4, who is brother-in- law, harassed her insisting to fulﬁll his sexual lust and unable to bear the same she went to her parents house, where petitioner No.1, husband, beat her demanding her to come to matrimonial house along with the demanded additional dowry. Based on the complaint of the de facto complainant, police registered the crime against the petitioners and after investigation ﬁled charge sheet against all the petitioners for the aforesaid oﬀences and the trial Court took cognizance of the same in C.C. No.152 of 2005, which is pending trial. 4. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is a physically challenged person. He is eking out his livelihood by running a telephone booth at Moosapet, Hyderabad along with his parents. After his marriage with the de facto complainant, she started running the telephone booth and developed illicit intimacy with one Ammaravathi Rajashekar Reddy, who is running a kirana shop opposite to telephone booth of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.4, who is brother-in-law, is staying in Mahabubnagar District as he is working as a Primary School Teacher at Lingala Mandal of Mahabubnagar District. Noticing the illicit relationship of the de facto complainant, petitioner No.3 objected her and warned her not to continue the same, but she did not heed to her request and started quarrelling with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 – parents-in-law frequently, as such, they left the company of petitioner No.1 and the de facto complainant and started living in Mahabubnagar District only. Subsequently, after petitioner No.1 coming to know about the illicit relationship of the de facto complainant and objected for the same, she left his company and started living at Thirumalagiri Village, near Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District. The eﬀorts of petitioner No.1 to bring her back to the matrimonial house proved futile, as such, he went to the village of the de facto complainant to fetch her, but she not only refused to follow her but also ﬁled the present false complaint against him and the other petitioners for the aforesaid oﬀences in Chillakallu Police Station, Krishna District. He further submits that as per the version of the de facto complainant, petitioners have harassed her at Moosapet of Hyderabad, whereas she is residing at Thirumalagiri Village of Krishna District, as such, the question of petitioners harassing her at Thirumalagiri does not arise, therefore, the complaint ﬁled at Thirumalagiri does not stand and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the matter requires judicial adjudication and at this stage it is not proper to quash the impugned proceedings. 7. It is settled law that in matrimonial cases, the de facto complainant – wife can lodge complaint wherever she resides apart from the place at which the oﬀence has taken place. Further, the impugned proceedings are of 2006 and this petition for quashing the same is ﬁled in April 2009 and from then it is pending without any interim stay till now. 8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a ﬁt case for quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioners by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J November 17, 2011. PV