IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1067 OF 2009 Between: Donuri Lalitha and another. …Petitioners/A-2 and A-3 A n d The State of A.P. through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1067 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 24-04-2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1580 of 2008 in C.C.No.891 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Miryalaguda, wherein the petition filed by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 under Section 239 Cr.P.C for discharge, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners/A-2 and A-3 along with another are accused of offences under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are parents of A-1. The petitioners sought discharge on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the offence had taken place in USA and BHEL, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate on a perusal of the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C held that the offence took place not only at BHEL, Hyderabad and USA, but also at the house of the parents of the complainant situate at Miryalguda. It was also held that the material on record prima facie disclose that the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are attracted against A-2 and A-3 also. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C would disclose that specific allegation is made to the effect that after A-1 left for USA for job, leaving the complainant at in-laws house, the mother-in-law/A-2 and father-in-law/A-3 along with others subjected the complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry of Rs.20 lakhs from her parents in order to send her to USA. It is further alleged that they threatened that if she fails to bring the said amount, they would perform another marriage to her husband. It is also alleged that the complainant informed the matter to her parents over telephone and in turn her parents along with two elders came to in-laws house and convinced them. It is further alleged that subsequently in November, 2006, the complainant was sent to USA where she joined her husband but after few days at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 over telephone, A-1 started ill- treating the complainant again demanding additional dowry of Rs.20 lakhs and threatened to marry another woman at USA if she fails to meet the demand and the complainant informed the same to her parents over telephone and her parents telephoned to A-1 and requested him not to ill-treat their daughter. It is further alleged that A-1 tried to kill the complainant by throttling and in the month of June, 2007 she informed the same to her parents over telephone and then she came back to India and took shelter in her parents’ house at Miryalaguda. 5. In view of the specific allegations made against A-2 and A-3, who are none else than the parents of A-1, pertaining to the demand for additional dowry and also subjecting the complainant to ill-treatment and harassment over her failure to fulfill the said demand, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case or sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a matter to be considered only at the time of trial. The charge sheet and the record of investigation filed into the Court clearly establish that sufficient material, in fact, exists so as to proceed further against A-2 and A-3. It is well settled that at this stage, it is out of place to consider whether such material is sufficient to warrant a conviction. 6. Regarding the jurisdiction, the alleged demand for additional dowry was repeatedly conveyed to the parents of the complainant who are residing at Miryalaguda and it is further alleged that the parents failed to comply with the said demand. The alleged harassment and ill-treatment of the complainant was on account of such failure on the parents to comply with the demand for additional dowry. According to the prosecution, unable to bear the harassment and ill-treatment, the complainant had to return to India and take shelter in her parents’ house. The harassment continued even thereafter. The complainant had not gone to her parents’ house on account of any festival or ceremony or as a customary visit. She was forced to take shelter in her parents’ house unable to bear the harassment by the husband and in- laws. So long as the demand for payment of additional dowry persisted, the complainant wherever she stays would certainly be subjected to mental agony, which amounts to perpetration of harassment by the accused. It cannot, therefore, be said that no part of cause of action arose at Miryalaguda where the complainant was constrained to take shelter on account of continued harassment by the accused. The alleged offences under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have, therefore, continued even after the complainant shifted to her parents’ house at Miryalaguda and afforded a continuing cause of action for the complainant to lodge the complaint at Miryalaguda. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are held not liable to be discharged. The impugned order dismissing their application for discharge is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with. 8. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th August 2009. Lrkm.