HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5353 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 for quashing further proceedings against him in CC No.486 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet, Warangal district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, Chennaraopet police registered a case in Cr.No.103 of 2007 against the petitioners, for the oﬀences under sections 498-A, 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after due investigation, police ﬁled charge sheet against the petitioners for the said oﬀences and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.486 of 2007. 4. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 was performed in the year 1992 and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave Rs.40,000/- towards dowry besides house hold articles as demanded by the accused. A.2 is the mother and A.3 is the sister of A.1. The complainant alleges that subsequent to the marriage, the accused started harassing her mentally and physically demanding additional dowry and on one occasion, even attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene. It is further alleged that the complainant’s parents have arranged Rs.20,000/- on one occasion, Rs.10,000/- on another occasion and Rs.5,000/- on the third occasion besides two tulas of gold as demanded by the accused, but however, the accused did not stop the harassment. It is further alleged that the accused threatened to kill her and the complainant’s parents again gave Rs.25,000/- to A.1, but still there was no change in their attitude, in spite of several mediations. It is further alleged that after the complainant gave birth to a daughter, the accused insisted her to bring two more tulas of gold and the parents of the complainant gave half tulas gold and Rs.5,000/- but the accused necked the complainant out of the house. It is also alleged that subsequently, A.1 married another woman with the support of Nalgonda Ramesh, under whom he is working as clerk. 5. The complaint and the charge sheet would therefore go to show that speciﬁc allegations have been made against all the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 and speciﬁc overt acts have also been attributed to them, prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the oﬀences alleged. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the averments in the charge sheet, the alleged oﬀences have taken place entirely at Gopalapuram village, which is within the jurisdiction of Duggondi PS and therefore, the registration of the crime and investigation thereof by the police of Chennaraopet is without jurisdiction. It is to be noted that though the alleged events are said to have taken place at Gopalapuram village, which is within the limits of Duggondi PS, after the complainant was necked out of the house, she has been taking shelter with her parents at Gurijala village, which is within the limits of Chennaraopet PS. In the charge sheet also, it is stated that the scene of oﬀence falls under the limits of Chennaraopet and within the territorial jurisdiction of Narsampet. 7. The complainant is the victim of harassment and on account of the conduct of the accused demanding additional dowry and not being satisﬁed with the amount paid by the complainant’s parents from time to time, continued the harassment and ultimately necked out of the house, and she had to take shelter with her parents and therefore, the harassment continued even while she was staying at her parents house and that after the 2nd marriage undergone by A.1, harassment of the complainant became more serious. 8. This Court in ‘Chitte Siddaiah v. Chitte Sujatha[1]’, held that ‘the valuable rights of helpless and hapless victim woman and her ﬁght for justice cannot be defeated by narrow interpretation of the provisions of law relating to cause of action and jurisdiction by resorting to a pedantic and technical approach’. 9. In ‘Issa Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P.’[2], this Court held that the complainant alleging the oﬀence under Section 498-A IPC, relating to dowry harassment, case can be ﬁled at place where demand for dowry or additional dowry was made or at place where aggrieved woman was forced to live on account of such harassment.’ 10. The present case is squarely covered by the above decisions of this Court. In the present case also, the complainant is forced to stay at her parents’ house not on her own volition, but having no other alternative, as she was driven out of the house by the accused over the alleged demand for additional dowry. Therefore, she continued to remain in her parents’ house under forced circumstances and she continued to be subjected to mental harassment, even if no physical act of harassment has taken at that place. Even such mental harassment falls within the ambit or scope of the oﬀence under section 498-A IPC. Further the demand for additional dowry was made on the parents of the complainant, who are residing at Gurijala village and the same was made by them on more than one occasion. The cause of action therefore arises partly at Gurijala village also which is admittedly within the jurisdiction of Chennaraopet PS. The question as to whether or not the alleged oﬀence is true is a matter has to be considered on evidence during the course of trial. Insofar as the aspect of jurisdiction, the police at Chennaraopet PS are certainly justiﬁed in registering the complaint, and also investigating into the same, as part of cause of action is shown to have arisen within the limits of the said police station. The ground alleged by the petitioners for quashing further proceedings is therefore untenable. It is therefore considered not a ﬁt case to quash further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.486 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsampet by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.12.2011 bss [1] 2008(1) ALT (Crl.) 225 (A.P.) [2] 2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 332 (A.P.)