HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3378 of 2011 Dated 7.7.2011 Between: D.Sanjeeva Reddy and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3378 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioners herein are A.2 to A.4 in Cr.No.26 of 2011 of Women Police Station, Nalgonda District. They filed this petition for quashing F.I.R. in the said case. Offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the allegations in the F.I.R. and firstly argued that all the allegations would show that the acts of harassment were committed when the defacto complainant i.e., 2nd respondent herein was staying with her husband i.e., 1st accused in U.S.A. and therefore, the police station at Nalgonda i.e., in in India has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 4. It is difficult to accept this contention. 5. A perusal of the F.I.R. would show that a part of the cause of action can also be said to have arisen within the limits of Nalgonda Women Police Station. However, this is a matter to be decided in the course of investigation and nothing can be said about the same and hence, the above 1st contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 6. Petitioners’ counsel then pointed out that the allegations in the charge-sheet even if believed do not show any offence. It is difficult to accept this contention also. It may be noted that the allegations in the F.I.R. read as a whole would indicate offences against these petitioners also. The matter needs investigation. Accordingly, the relief for quashing the F.I.R. is rejected. 7. It is, however, brought to my notice that the petitioners 1 and 2 who are the parents-in-law of the defacto complainant are stated to be 60 and 55 years respectively and 3rd petitioner is said to be the brother of the 2nd petitioner. It may also be noted that the dispute is a family dispute and in course of time, the defacto complainant and her husband may also come together and this court hopes that they should come together. 8. In these circumstances, the police may take a decision about the arrest of these petitioners after completion of the investigation. The police shall proceed to complete the investigation expeditiously and file their report before the concerned Magistrate 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 7.7.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3378 of 2011 Dated 7.7.2011