IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5642 of 2009 DATE: 28.02.2011 Between: M.A.Aleem and others …… Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by the P.P. And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5642 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 6/A-1 to A-6 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.222 of 2009 of Mahaboobnagar Rural Police Station. 2) Placing reliance on Y.Abraham Ajith V. Inspector of Police, Chennai[1], it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no part of cause of action for the case arose within Mahaboobnagar Rural Police Station limits and that therefore the said Police Station has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and register the case and to take up investigation in this case. According to the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant, her marriage with A-1 took place on 27.04.2008 and her parents gave Rs.50,000/-, 4 tolas of gold and other household articles at the time of marriage, and after marriage the accused who are her husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and husband of one sister-in-law together harassed her physically and mentally to get additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, and on 22.01.2009 part of the demand was fulfilled by paying Rs.1,00,000/-, and subsequently the accused continued the demand for the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- as additional dowry. In the report, it is not stated as to where the marriage took place and as to where she resided with A-1 and where A-1 to A-6 harassed her. The petitioners’ counsel stated that the marriage took place at the place of the 2nd respondent’s parents in Mahaboobnagar District and that A-1 and the 2nd respondent lived together at Hyderabad in Ovaisi Nagar. If it is so, then cause of action for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C took place at Hyderabad, whereas cause of action for the offences under Section Dowry Prohibition Act took place in Mahaboobnagar within the limits of Mahaboobnagar Rural Police Station. So, the above said Supreme Court decision has no application to facts of this case. 3) It is contended that the petitioners 3 and 6 are residents of Mahaboobnagar District and that they do not live along with A- 1 in his house where the alleged harassment took place. It is a matter to be considered by the investigating officer in finalising the investigation after collection of evidence. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the F.I.R in this case at its threshold. 4) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 28, 2011 ksh [1] (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 100