IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 4902 of 2009 Between: 1 Padi Trigunsen Reddy, S/o. P.Raja Reddy, R/o. 805, Evergreen Forest Blvd, Avenel, Middlesex Country New Jersey, USA-07001. 2 Padi Raja Reddy, S/o. P.Sudhakar Reddy, R/o. 3-12-13g Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District-AP 3 Smt. Padi Vimala Reddy, W/o. P.Raja Reddy, R/o. 3-12-13G Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District-AP ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Cout of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Smt.Jyothi Reddy, D/o. P.Manik Reddy, R/o. Plot No.237, Road No.10-C, MLA & MP's Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad -AP .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto call for the records and quash the Cr.No. 234/2007, CC.No. 158/2009 and protest petition Crl.M.P.No. 3680 of 2008 of PS WPS, CCS, HYderabad on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for Hyderabad for taking cognizance of offence U/Sec498-A, Sec. 3,4 and 6 of D.P.Act The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 4902 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the courts in India have no territorial jurisdiction, as the alleged offences have taken place in USA. This question somewhat depends on facts too. As such it is not possible for this court to decide, at this stage, as to whether there is no territorial jurisdiction for the Courts in India. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial curt may be directed to dispose of the case expeditiously for the reason that the first petitioner came to India only for the purpose of this case. In such view of the matter, this petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the calendar case within three months fro today, as the complaint is of the year 2007 and the witnesses cited are only eleven. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners wanted the question of territorial jurisdiction to be decided as a preliminary question. This court was initially in favour of giving such a direction; but, now, as a direction is being given for final disposal of the case within three months, it is not necessary to direct the trial court to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction initially, as, any such decision, in case, can be given also, would obviously delay the final disposal, as, against any such finding, the effected party would approach the superior court. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 22, 2010. *BVS