THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4750 of 2009 DATED: 11.02.2011 BETWEEEN: 1.Mirza Irfan Ali Baig & 4 others. … Petitioners AND 1. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor & 2 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4750 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A5 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-(A)/34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.169 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The only point urged by the petitioners’ counsel in this petition is that the lower Court at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case as no part of cause of action for the offences took place within the jurisdiction of the lower Court. 2. It is alleged that marriage of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant with A1 took place on 10.05.2007 at Bajrbar Function Hall, Etabar Chowk, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and that at the time of marriage, as per demand of A1 to A5, parents of the 3rd respondent gave Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, extra cash of Rs.1,00,000/- furniture, 25 tulas of gold, pearl necklace worth of Rs.20,000/-, clothes worth of Rs.20,000/- to A1 and clothes of the complainant worth of Rs.50,000/-, one pair of citizen watches and also amount of Rs.50,000/- as goda-joda to A1 to A5 in the presence of witnesses. After marriage, the 3rd respondent joined the accused at Parbhani, near Nanded, Maharashtra State. It is further alleged that A1 to A5 harassed the 3rd respondent for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and were creating problems to her and that on 21.06.2007, all the accused violently beat the 3rd respondent and necked her out of the house demanding to return to the house with additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on Y.Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police[1] and Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan[2] of the Supreme Court and contended that the proceedings in lower Court are liable to be quashed as the lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case for trial. 4. As pointed out earlier, marriage of the 3rd respondent with A1 took place at Hyderabad. There is no dispute of the said fact. It is alleged that dowry and other presents were given by parents of the 3rd respondent to A1 to A5 at the time of marriage. Therefore, even though the couple resided at Parbhani of Maharashtra State, where a part of cause of action for the offence under Section 498(A) took place, it cannot be denied that part of the cause of the action for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act took place within the jurisdiction of the lower Court at Hyderabad. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the lower Court totally lacked jurisdiction to try this case. 5. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 11.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4750 of 2009 DATED: 11.02.2011 Ysk [1] [2004(3) B Cr C 623] (SC) [2] (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 103