THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5494 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Hanumansetti Satyanarayana Murthy & 3 others … Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the PP & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5494 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4/A1 to A4 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498(A) I.P.C. in CC.No.1139 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. A2 is brother and A3 is mother of A1. A4 is wife of A2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the Court at Visakhapatnam has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case as no part of cause of action for the case arose within its jurisdiction. Admittedly, A1 and the de facto complainant lived together at Palakonda of Srikakulam District where the alleged demand for additional dowry took place. Even as per the 2nd respondent’s case, she was abandoned by A1 on 12.11.2006 at Sirlam near Bhimunipatnam (near Bhimili). According to the petitioners, Sirlam is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bhimunipatnam. Placing reliance on Y.Abraham Ajit Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai[1], it is urged by the petitioners’ counsel that the case in the lower Court is liable to be quashed and the complaint therein is liable to be returned to the 2nd respondent so that she may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with according to law, if she so chooses. The 2nd respondent’s counsel contended that territorial jurisdiction is not a pure question of law and that it is a mixed question of fact and law and that it should be left open to the Magistrate to be decided after trial, so that the Magistrate will adopt proper course having regard to the evidence let in by both the parties. 2. Subsequent to the abandonment on 12.11.2006, the 2nd respondent joined her brother at Visakhapatnam and began residing there. It is specifically alleged in the report given by the 2nd respondent to the Police that when she has been residing with her brother at Visakhapatam, her brother as well as herself received telephone calls threatening that the 2nd respondent will be discarded in case additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- is not paid as demanded by him. Even though it was not specifically stated as to who telephoned to the 2nd respondent and her brother, the context reveals that it was made by A1. Therefore, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. took place at Visakhapatnam. The allegations do disclose that when the 2nd respondent has been residing at Visakhapatnam, she was harassed by telephone by A1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and if not to discard her. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that no cause of action for the offence under Section 498(A) I.P.C. took place at Visakhapatnam. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 28.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5494 of 2009 DATED: 28.02.2011 ysk [1] AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4286