HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO. 3774 OF 2010 Date: 27.04.2010 Between: Shaik Anwar and others …..Petitioners And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP And another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3774 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.255 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Siricilla relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) On perusal of allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and other documents appended to the charge sheet, those allegations on their face value disclose the above said offences. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even if all the said allegations are true, the case is not maintainable in Siricilla Court of Andhra Pradesh as the entire incidents happened at Basmath Nagar, Ingoli District of Maharashtra State and that Siricilla Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a ground available under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing total criminal proceedings. It may be a ground for transferring the case to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Further the said contingency also may not arise in this case because the allegations disclose that three days prior to giving of report to the police, all the accused came to Narayanapuram village of Yellareddipet Mandal, Karimnagar District, where the defacto-complainant was residing with her mother and demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and also stated that she would be taken back only if their demand is fulfilled and that she was also beaten in that incident. Thus, part of cause of action in this case arose within the jurisdiction of Siricilla Magistrate Court. 4) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that five days prior to giving of report by the defacto-complainant to the police, there was divorce given by A-1 who is the husband to the victim and that it is evidenced by documentary proof also. This is a question of fact which cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter which has to be decided by the trial Court after both the parties leading evidence in the criminal case. At any rate subsequent divorce between the parties cannot absolve the accused from criminal liability in case the prosecution is able to prove the alleged harassment of the victim prior to the alleged divorce. I do not find any valid or legal grounds for quashing the criminal case. 5) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:27.04.2010. KSH