IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8719 of 2009 DATE:09.09.2010 Between: Tirupati Satya Seshu Alwar and others …… Petitioners And: The State of A.P. rep. By S.H.O Srikakulam I Town P.S and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8719 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 4/A-1 to A-4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 419 I.P.C in C.C. No.413 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant married A-1 at Kovvur and lead marital life with A-1 at Yarnagudem within limits of Kovvur Magistrate. There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent married another person previously and had one son through him and subsequently obtained divorce from her first husband and thereafter married A-1 at Kovvur. It is alleged that A-1 married the defacto- complainant by falsely representing that his first wife discarded him. It is alleged that when the 2nd respondent joined A-1, she came to know about A- 1’s first wife living and A1 leading family life with her. It is further alleged that apart from obtaining dowry and other presents at the time of marriage, the accused demanded to get additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and began harassing the 2nd respondent. Subsequently there was separation between the parties and the 2nd respondent went Srikakulam and gave report to the police who filed the charge sheet for the above offences against A-1 to A-4 in Srikakulam Court after investigation. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the entire cause of action took place at Kovvur and Yarnagudem and no part of the cause of action took place at Srikakulam and that therefore Srikakulam Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case, even if allegations of the complaint are taken on their face value. It is further contended that since the 2nd respondent is a bigamous wife of A-1, she cannot invoke offence under Section 498-A I.P.C against A-1 to A-4. In so far as offences punishable under Sections 494 and 420 or 419 I.P.C are concerned, the petitioner pleads lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that when the 2nd respondent approached Human Rights Commission and on the directions of Human Rights Commission, Devarapalli Police registered case against A-1 and others and filed charge sheet against them in C.C. No.255 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420/34 I.P.C before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovvur. Having regard to the above factual scenario, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for quashing entire proceedings in C.C. No.413 of 2009 and that having regard to allegations regarding territorial jurisdiction, it would be in the interest of justice that the said case should be transferred from Srikakulam to Kovvur. 3) In the result, C.C. No.413 of 2009 is transferred from the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam to the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovvur for being tried simultaneously along with C.C. No.255 of 2009. The petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 09, 2010 KSH