HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.817 of 2007 Between: K.Nageswara Rao and others … Petitioners And State, rep. By Inspector of Police, CID, and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.817 OF 2007 ORDER:- This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 1997 pending on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, wherein A1 to A6 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 307 IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and A2, A4 to A6 are also charged for the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC. Petitioners are A1 and A3 to A6. A1 is the husband, of the de facto complainant i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, A2 and A3 are the father and mother-in-law, A4 is the brother of A1, A5 is the eldest sister of A1 and A6 is the younger brother of A2 and paternal uncle of A1. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint that the marriage between herself and A1 took place on 20.04.1992 in the premises of Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple at Vijayawada and as demanded by A1 to A5, her parents gave Rs.40,000/- as dowry and Rs.30,000/- towards the purchase of clothes and Rs.20,000/- towards the purchase of house hold articles to the accused and also spent Rs.65,000/-- towards catering etc. After the marriage both the accused and the 2nd respondent used to live at Vijayawada happily for about two months and thereafter the accused harassed the 2nd respondent for additional dowry and the parents of the complainant gave additional dowry of Rs.30,000/- to the accused. After sometime A1 demanded additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- and the parents of L.W.1 gave Rs.1,000/- and thereafter the accused started abusing her, beating her and not allowing her to sleep with him. A2 was making indecent gestures and undue advances towards her. A5, who is the eldest sister of A1 and who resides in the house opposite to the house of A2, used to spend most of her time in A2’s house harassing and meting out cruelty to her and on one occasion A2 and A5 gave some medication to L.W.1 which made her seriously ill. A4 and A6 also physically and mentally harassed the 2nd respondent. On lodging the above complaint, the Inspector of Police, WPC, CID, Hyderabad after due investigation registered the case and filed a report on 17.10.1997 stating that as no evidence could be collected to substantiate the offences under Sections 354 and 307 IPC and Section 6 of the D.P.Act, the said sections are accordingly deleted from the charge sheet and the charge sheet has been allowed for the remaining offences under sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. On filing the report, the learned Magistrate by order dated 23.10.2006 numbered the P.R.C. and addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial), through the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad observing that evidence does not disclose any part of the offence to have taken place at Hyderabad and directed the Court to take necessary steps as per the proceedings of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 05.05.1998 In pursuance of the same, the Magistrate and the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, addressed a letter to this Court on 18.05.2002 and 23.01.2004 to pass necessary orders for transferring the case to any other Court having jurisdiction at Vijayawada. Since the orders have not been received from this Court in the matter, as a result of which the case is being adjourned from time to time without any progress and hence requested this Court to pass necessary orders as it is one of the oldest cases pending on its file. When the matter is pending at the committal stage, the accused used to be present in the court on each dates of hearing to which the case stands posted. Ultimately when A1, A3, A5 and A6 filed application under Section 317 Cr.P.C., to dispense with their presence in Crl.M.P.No.4983 of 2006, the same was dismissed by the Magistrate on 01.12.2006, which lead to filing of the present petition for quashing the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that as no part of cause of action has arisen at Hyderabad within the jurisdiction of the C.I.D. Police Station, Hyderabad, the police will have no jurisdiction to try the said case. Further, he contends that the 1st petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, filed O.P.No.161 of 1997 seeking divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it was later converted into an O.P. under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner and the de facto complaint filed a joint E.A.No.616 of 1998 and a decree of divorce had been granted with mutual consent by the Family Court at Vijayawada in the said O.P. on 25.11.1998. In view of the dissolution of the marriage between the parties, if the present complaint is allowed to be continued, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law and an harassment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police[1] that the if a cause of action for the offence under Section 498A IPC is alleged to have taken at a place, the police at that place will have jurisdiction and if any complaint is filed to which the police will not have jurisdiction, necessarily the same has to be transferred to the police which will have jurisdiction to investigate and to lay the charge sheet and the Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arisen alone will have jurisdiction to try for the alleged offences and accordingly quashed the proceedings holding that the concerned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and directed to return the complaint to the 2n d respondent, if she so chooses, the complainant can file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. Since the Magistrate himself wrote a letter that the complaint allegations do not disclose any cause of action within the jurisdiction of WPC, CID, Hyderabad and as the entire cause of action and harassment for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC was arisen within the jurisdiction at Vijayawada, continuing the present proceedings against the petitioners/accused is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same is accordingly quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 30th July 2010 lmv [1] AIR 2004 SC 4286