IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5305 OF 2009 Between: G. Venkata Krishna & 3 others … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P.& another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5305 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), in C.C.No.74 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Punganur. A-1 is husband of the second respondent/complainant. A-2 is father, A-3 is mother and A-4 is unmarried sister of A-1. All are residents of Bangalore. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. The second respondent is now residing in her parent’s house at Punganur in Chittoor District. 2. Marriage of the second respondent with A-1 took place at Tirupati. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the second respondent presented gold ornaments worth Rs.1,45,950/- to A-1 and that apart from those ornaments, Rs.10,000/- was given for purchase of gold ring and silver articles weighing 1700 grams were given, wrist watch worth Rs.5,000/- was given, another gold ring worth Rs.10,000/- weighing around 8 grams was given. Apart from those articles, Rs.25,000/- is also stated to have been given for purchase of clothing. It is specifically averred that Rs.25,000/- was given for purchase of clothing to A-2, A-3 and A-4. Apart from that, it is alleged that parents of the complainant presented gold ornaments weighing about 275 grams worth Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of marriage. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, it is alleged that A-1 started harassing the complainant physically and mentally and subjected her to mental torture and that A-4 being unmarried sister of A-1 was having sadistic mentality and influenced A-1 with making attributions against the complainant. It is further alleged that all the accused conspired against the complainant and decided to neck her out of the house and that A-1 to A-4 demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- from parents of the complainant. Previously, the second respondent gave report to the Punganur police with those allegations and the police registered case in Crime No.125 of 2008 under Section 498-A IPC. It is stated that at the crime stage, the case was compromised before Lok Adalat and accordingly, the crime was closed and A-1 to A-4 were acquitted. The question of acquittal of A-1 to A-4 will not arise at the crime stage without the police filing charge sheet and without the Magistrate framing charges against the accused. Subsequent to the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the second respondent joined the accused and again it is alleged that A-1 to A-4 started ill-treating the complainant. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in view of previous Lok Adalat award, the Criminal Court may not be in a position to go back to the allegations in Crime No.125 of 2008 as it was closed. But, there is no dispute that terms of award of Lok Adalat were not complied with in as much as there was no setting up of separate residence for A-1 and the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has chosen to file private complaint before the lower Court making all the allegations against A-1 to A-4. 4. The petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on NEELU CHOPRA AND ANOTHER VS. BHARTI[1] and BHASKAR LAL SHARMA AND ANOTEHR VS. MONICA[2] of the Supreme Court contended that allegations in the FIR/complaint/charge sheet have to be looked into for finding out whether there are valid allegations touching offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and that mere mechanical repetition of ingredients of the penal section will not be sufficient and there must be supporting facts for those ingredients. The above allegations scribbled in the complaint constitute statutory facts required for the offences under Section 498A IPC as well as under Section 4 of the Act. 5. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no part of cause of action for the offences took place within jurisdiction of the Punganur Magistrate and that the entire allegations pertain to the facts which are alleged to have occurred at Bangalore. In this case, there are two specific and distinct offences, one for the offence under Section 498A IPC and the other one for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Insofar as family relationship touching the offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, it was at Bangalore. But, insofar as the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, none of the statutory facts occurred at Bangalore. As the matter now stands, it is not known where the marriage talks took place and where actually dowry and other articles and other sums of money were handed over to A-1 to A-4. It is a matter for evidence. This Court is of the opinion that the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Court is not a pure question of law but is a mixed question of fact and law. This Court sitting under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot go into questions of fact in order to quash any pending proceedings in the lower Courts. It is for the lower Court to decide whether that Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case or not after recording entire evidence to be let in by both the parties. Until then, it cannot be said that the lower Court at Punganur has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. In the circumstances, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in the lower Court. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 11, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5305 OF 2009 November 11, 2010 KL [1] (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 286 [2] (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 383