IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.3617 of 2009 Between: G.Srinivas & another … Petitioners/A.1 & A.2 And: The S.H.O., Rajendranagar PS, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.3617 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings in CC No.347 of 2009on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the 2nd respondent-de-facto complainant, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint to the police, based on which, Cr.No.1375 of 2008 was registered at Rajendranagar PS against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet also against the petitioners and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.347 of 2009 by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. 4. The first petitioner-A.1 is the husband and 2nd petitioner-A.2 is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent-complainant. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 was performed on 07.05.1998 a t Hyderabad and at the time of the marriage on demand by the accused, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- and 25 tulas of gold as dowry and that as she did not conceive children, she was subjected to harassment by the accused, who also demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. The complainant further alleges that the accused even tried to kill her by pouring kerosene. 5. Earlier, while investigation was pending, the petitioners and other accused filed Crl.P.No.8219 of 2008 under Section 482 Cr PC and this Court by order dated 24.12.2008 directed that the investigation shall go on, but the petitioners shall not be arrested till filing of the charge sheet, if any. Subsequently, the charge sheet is filed, wherein the allegations made in the complaint are reiterated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even according to the complainant, the alleged harassment took place while she was at her in-laws house at Langer House and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of PS Rajendranagar and therefore, the police of Rajendranagar have no jurisdiction to investigate into the offence and taking of cognizance by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate is also without jurisdiction. He would further contend that the complainant and her parents are accused of murder of the first petitioner’s father in Cr.No.1414 of 2008 and in order to escape from the said case, a false complaint is lodged by the complainant. It is also contended by the petitioners that there is another complaint filed against the 2nd respondent and her family members by the 2nd petitioner herein alleging the offences under Sections 354, 323, 448 and 506 IPC and the same was referred to the police Langer House, where Cr.No.154 of 2009 was registered and investigation is pending. 7. It is not disputed that the first petitioner filed FCOP No.1223 of 2008 against the 2nd respondent herein for grant of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is also pending. The 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the District Women and Child Development Agency, Ranga Reddy district, based on which, DVC No.1 of 2009 was filed before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. 8. It can therefore be seen that several proceedings are pending between the parties in different Courts. The truth or otherwise of the allegations against one another can only be determined on the basis of the evidence that may be gathered during investigation into the respective complaints or on the basis of the evidence that may be let in during the course of enquiry/trial of the concerned cases. The complaint filed by the petitioners against the 2nd respondent and her parents and other family members alleging murder of the father of the first petitioner is pending investigation in Cr.No.1414 of 2008. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation of murder made against the 2nd petitioner and her people also requires to be adjudicated upon after completion of the investigation. At this stage, it is premature to draw any inference that because the petitioner gave a complaint against the 2nd respondent and her people in Cr.No.1414 of 2008 alleging murder of first petitioner’s father, the present complaint in FIR No.1375 of 2008 was lodged by the 2nd respondent by way of retaliation or to get over the criminal consequences of Cr.No.1414 of 2008. When specific allegation is made against the petitioners that they demanded additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and subjected the 2nd respondent to physical and mental harassment over the said demand and when the police have also filed charge sheet after due investigation, it is just and proper that the law must be allowed to take its course for deciding the truth or otherwise of the said allegation instead of thwarting further proceedings. It is well established that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and cannot be invoked to scuttle the prosecution, especially when the specific allegations have been made attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. 9. The petitioners contend that the entire alleged cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of PS Langer House, within whose limits the petitioners are residing and no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of Rajendranagar PS, wherein, the 2nd respondent is stated to be residing. The 2nd respondent is working as a Teacher in Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district and residing with her parents at Upparpalli, Rajendranagar Mandal. The petitioners are residents of Defence Colony, Langer House. According to the 2nd respondent, the harassment over demand of additional dowry continued even after she was sent out of the matrimonial home by the petitioners. The question as to whether or not there was any demand for additional dowry by the petitioners and whether or not the 2nd respondent was subjected to any harassment over such demand and whether or not such alleged harassment continued even after the 2nd respondent left the matrimonial house, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court after necessary evidence is adduced during the course of trial. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon the decision of this Court in ‘Venkatapathi Naidu & others vs. State of A.P., and another[1]’, wherein it was held as follows: “In the present case also, as no part of cause of action is shown to have arisen at Hyderabad within the jurisdiction of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad and the entire cause of action as can be seen from the record, is alleged to have arisen at Chittoor. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex court in the above case, the proceedings in CC No.1176 of 2005 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad are not maintainable and they are accordingly quashed. It is however, open to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter.” 11. In the above case, it was found that no part of cause of action was shown to have arisen at Hyberabad within the jurisdiction of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally and the entire cause of action has arisen at Chittoor. It was therefore directed that further proceedings in CC No.1176 of 2005 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally are not maintainable, with a liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint before the appropriate Court, having jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the present case from the material placed on record it cannot be said that the cause of action entirely arose within the jurisdiction of Langer House PS and no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of Rajendranagar PS. As stated supra, it is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during trial. It is always open to the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar to return the charge sheet for presentation before the proper Court in the event that the said Court finds no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The same does not, however in the facts of the present case afford a valid or sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings altogether. 12. In the circumstances, it is held that it is not a fit case for invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings in CC No.347 of 2009 on the file of the VIII metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. 13. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.11.2010 bss [1] 2008 Crl.L.J. 179