HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.989 OF 2009 DATE:12.08.2010 Between: Pittela Ramesh and 2 others …… Petitioners. And: The State of AP., rep. by PP, High Court of AP., Hyderabad and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.989 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.192 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nizamabad, along with two others. A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. A-2 is mother and A-3 is married sister of A-1. There is no dispute that marriage of A-1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 08.12.2002 at parents’ house of the 2nd respondent in Nizamabad District. It is alleged that parents of the complainant gave Rs.70,000/-, 1 tola of gold, utensils and furniture as dowry to the accused. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-3 started harassing and beating the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners’ counsel contended that false allegations were made against the petitioners. Truth or otherwise of the falsity of the allegations cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence of both the parties. The allegations in the complaint to the effect that the accused beat and harassed the 2nd respondent regularly for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, squarely attract second limb of Explanation to Section 498-A IPC and also in terms of Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala[1]of the Supreme Court. 2. It is then contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the entire cause of action arose at Kukatapally where the 2nd respondent lived together with the accused and that therefore, Nizamabad court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Though the couple lived at Kukatpally of Ranga Reddy District to lead their marital life, their marriage took place in Dichpally Mandal of Nizamabad District. When there is allegation under the Dowry Prohibition Act already, then it has to be concluded that part of cause of action for the case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Nizamabad Magistrate. Further territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be gone into in this criminal petition. Since part of the cause of action took place within the jurisdiction of Nizamabad court, Manish Ratan v. State of M.P[2] cannot be applied to facts of this case. 3. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent filed the present complaint in the lower court as counter blast for a report given by A-1 to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad. No case is registered by the police on that report. On a reading of the said report, it is evident that the said report was given by the husband to overreach the 2nd respondent. It cannot have any effect on the present case filed by the 2nd respondent. 4. At any rate, the 3rd petitioner/A-3 is a married sister of A-1. She is a resident of her husband’s house in a different place from that of A-1 and A-2. No specific allegation was made against A-3 touching the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. Further the dowry alleged to have been paid at the time of marriage would not have been received by A-3 who is a junior member of the family. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that A-3 was implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Continuation of proceedings against A-3 would be abuse of process of law. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.192 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nizamabad in so far as the 3rd petitioner/A-3 is concerned. The petition in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 is concerned dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:12.08.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.989 OF 2009 Date:12.08.2010 Gk. [1] 2009(2) ALD (Crl.) 497 [2] (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 262