HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 of 2007 Date: March 12, 2010 Between: 1. M. Vishnuvardhan and 6 others. ... Petitioners And 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents * * * ORDER: Heard the counsel. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the de facto complainant (second respondent herein) and first petitioner herein took place on 23.01.2004 at R.K. Kalyana Mandapam, Tiruchanur, near Tirupathi. At the time of marriage the first petitioner was given Rs.4.00 lakhs cash, 32 tolas of gold and some household articles. The second respondent joined her marital house at Chandragiri where her in-laws and her husband used to reside. The first petitioner herein and his parents started harassing the second respondent herein for additional dowry from December 2004 onwards and thereafter a separate family was set up by the first petitioner at Puttur as he was working there. On 03.11.2005 the second respondent gave birth to a male child at her parental house. When the second respondent went to her parental place for delivery, her husband (first petitioner herein), without her knowledge, vacated the house at Puttur and shifted his abode to the joint family house at Chandragiri. Thereafter, the second respondent went to her grandfather’s house at Tirupati and that her husband did not take her back to his house from Tirupati. On 08.11.2006 she was locked in the room of her in-laws’ house at Chandragiri. It is also stated that since there were some disputes with respect of the custody of the child, the first petitioner sent her back to Tirupati from Chandragiri retaining the child with them. They gave a complaint to Chandragiri police and that the said police did not take any action. Thereafter, they approached the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Tirupati, through whom they could get back her child and thereafter the second respondent came to her parents’ house at Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. 3. It is further stated that initially a private complaint was filed before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy, Medak District, by the de facto complainant (second respondent herein) which was referred to the police for investigation and the police filed the charge sheet by simply adopting the word to word of the private complaint filed by the de facto complainant. A reading of the private complaint as well as the charge sheet discloses that no part of the alleged offence took place at Ramachandrapuram or Sangareddy, Medak District. All the events including the marriage as alleged by the de facto complainant took place either at Chandragiri or Tirupati and not in Medak District. 4. It is also stated that it is not the case of the prosecution that even the consequences of the alleged offences ensued in Ramachandrapuram or Sangareddy court jurisdiction. It is not even the case of the second respondent that being driven out by the accused, she came back to Ramachandrapuram and took shelter there at her parents’ place. There is absolutely nothing connecting Ramachandrapuram of Medak District with the alleged offences. Medak District is more than 800 kilo metres away from Chandragiri. 5. Further it is stated that in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, a bald statement was made stating that all the above events took place at Ramachandrapuram, whereas, the body of the entire complaint shows that all those incidents took place at Chandragiri or Tirupati. Thus, a bald statement that all those incidents took place at Ramachandrapuram is not sufficient when the body of the complaint shows otherwise. Thus, the court at Sangareddy has no territorial jurisdiction and the investigation said to have been done by the police at Ramachandrapuram, is without jurisdiction. When the court at Sangareddy has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence, the trial of the case would be a futile one and would not end in any conviction. As such, the proceedings in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, have got to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction. 6. This Court had carefully gone through the allegations made in the charge sheet and this Court is satisfied that on the ground of jurisdiction, the petitioners are bound to succeed. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is hereby allowed, but however, liberty is given to the second respondent to initiate appropriate action before appropriate Court or appropriate police station, as the case may be, if she is so advised. ____________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: March 12, 2010. BSB