IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.889 OF 2009 Between: Donga Nagendra Prasad & 3 others … PETITIONERS And 1. Smt. Lakshmi Kalyani 2. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.889 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 4/A1 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A read with 34 I.P.C. in C.C.No.50 of 2009, on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Tanuku. The first respondent/de facto complainant is wife of A1. Both are closely related to each other since prior to marriage. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 is younger brother of A1. 2. The only contention raised by the petitioners’ counsel before this Court is that the Magistrate at Tanuku has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case because the entire alleged incidents of harassment took place at Uppal in Ranga Reddy District. Previously, the first respondent is stated to have given report to the Inspector of Police, Uppal Circle, on 26.04.2008 against the accused. It is not known as to what happened to that report, whether any case was booked against the accused in Uppal Police Station or not on that basis. It is further stated by the petitioners’ counsel that the said report was withdrawn by the first respondent after compromising the matter with the accused. The alleged giving of report and the alleged compromise between the parties are not borne out by any official record. 3. Admittedly, the accused are also natives of Kantheru village in Iragavaram mandal of West Godavari district, to which place the first respondent and her parents also belonged to; and marriage between A1 and the first respondent took place at Kantheru village. After marriage, the first respondent joined A1 in the house of A1 to A4 at Uppal in Ranga Reddy district, where the alleged incidents of harassment coupled with demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- took place. Subsequently, the first respondent has been living in her brother’s house at Kantheru. It is specifically alleged in the charge sheet that even after she was residing at Kantheru, A1 and other accused were contacting her by telephone and were threatening her that A1 would give divorce to her and would go for another marriage. The telephonic talk coupled with the prior demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cumulatively go to show that part of cause of action for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. also occurred at Kantheru village where the victim is residing and to which place she received telephone message of threats and harassment. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate at Tanuku has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Apart from the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., the prosecution alleges offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. When the marriage took place at Kantheru village within the limits of Tanuku Court and when the amount of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and was entrusted to A1 to A3 at Kantheru village, it cannot be said that no cause of action arose at Kantheru village within the jurisdiction of Tanuku Magistrate. I find no grounds to quash the charge sheet in this case. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 06, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.889 OF 2009 August 06, 2010 KL