THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6080 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Heard petitioner’s counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2 A perusal of the charge sheet would show that the allegations made therein do disclose the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant. Hence this is a minus point for the petitioner for entertaining this petition. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that the allegations would disclose that the offence occurred in Visakhapatnam town and therefore there was no cause of action for filing the case in Kakinada Court. It is difficult to accept this contention. Some of the allegations made in the charge sheet and the FIR would show that the de facto complainant suffered from ill treatment even while at Kakinada. It may, however, be noted that in Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others[1] it is held that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence need not necessarily have territorial jurisdiction for the offences and that if ultimately it is found that he has no territorial jurisdiction, the other steps may be taken. Having regard to the principle laid down in the said decision, I am of the opinion that there is no ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly this petition is dismissed at the admission stage. 4 Regarding the question of territorial jurisdiction of Kakinada Court, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise that objection before that court and it shall dispose of the same if any such objection is raised in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by this order. -------------------------------- N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 25.07.2011 Kvsn [1] 1999 (8) SCC 686