THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CRL.P.NO.1094 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the 2nd respondent and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent – defacto complainant, on the petitioners under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of I Town Police Station, Madanapalli, Chittoor District in Crime No.44/2008. 3. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She lodged complaint stating that her marriage was performed with one Parasa Venkata Trinath s/o Veeraiah (A-1) at Vijayawada city on 9.4.2007. Her husband was working at Allfine Company at Bangalore. After the marriage, her husband took her to Bangalore and set up the family. Her allegation is that her husband never treated her well for at least one month and always abused and bet her at the instance of his mother Parasa Bharti (A-2), younger sister Asha (A-3) and brother-in-law Srinivasulu (A-4). About two or three occasions, they bet her and sent her to her parents house by demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry on the ground that they have to perform the marriage to their sister. Her parents arranged the things and sent her to matrimonial house. Her parents even paid the rent for the house at Bangalore. Despite the efforts of her parents, there was no change in her husband. Her further allegation is that on 24.5.2008, her husband (A-1), mother-in-law (A-2), sister-in-law (A-3) and brother (A-4),i.e., husband of Asha, bet her and abused her and demanded that unless and until she brings ten lakhs towards additional dowry, they will not allow her to matrimonial life and thus sent away from Bangalore. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the A-2, A-3 and A-4 are not staying at Bangalore and that A-4, who is the husband of A-3, is a practicing advocate and they are residing at Vijayawada. On the relevant date i.e., on 24.5.2008, A-4 was not present at Bangalore and on the said date, he attended the court at Vijayawada and had also executed sureties in bail bonds. The counsel for the petitioner produced certified copies of the said bail bounds, before this court. He contended that the marriage of the sister was already performed, therefore, on the ground of performing the marriage of the daughter of A-2, the petitioners demanded money, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be believed. He further contended that as per the complaint, the alleged offence is committed at Bangalore. Therefore, the I Town Police Station, Madanapalli, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. With these averments, he sought to set aside the complaint. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the averments made by the petitioners with regard to their absence at Bangalore and their presence at Vijayawada on the relevant date of offence, is a fact, which has to be decided based on the evidence to be made available before the criminal court during trial and on the mere averments and the documents, produced during the course of arguments, which cannot be taken into consideration, this cannot decide their veracity. He contended that the allegations of the petitioners is that her husband subject her to cruelty at the instance of his mother, sister and brother-in-law and further they demanded amount and that on 24.5.2008 all of them bet her and abused her for additional dowry and sent her to her parents house. These allegations constitutes offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Whether such allegations are true or not, cannot be gone into by this court, in the absence of any evidence, and the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant cannot be quashed. With regard to jurisdiction, relying on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in SMT. SUJATA MUKHERJEE v. PRASHANT KUMAR MUKHERJEE[1] and BHUDEB CHANDRA KARMAKAR v. STATE OF W.B.[2], he contended that as the de facto complainant was sent away by her husband and his relatives, subjecting her to cruelty and demanding additional dowry, she was forced to reside in her parents house at Madanapally, and there she is suffering mental agony at her parents house and this constitutes continuing offence as per clause ( c ) of Section 178 and hence she can maintain a complaint at the place of her resident at Madanapally and no objection with regard to jurisdiction, can be entertained. With these averments, he sought to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. In order to appreciate the above contentions and to see whether the allegations made by the de facto complainant would not constitute offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and whether same warrants interference by this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to first note the allegations in the complaint. The English translation of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, which is filed along with the material papers and which is not disputed, is extracted as under: “I am staying with my parents at the above said place. I have studied up to MBA. To my parents, we are two daughters and one son. I am the eldest among all. On 09-04-2007 my marriage has been performed by my parents with one Parasa Venkata Trinath, s/o Veeraiah of Vijayawada City as per Hindu Rights and Customs. At the time of marriage, my parents paid a sum of eight lakhs cash and two lakhs worth gold ornaments to my husband. My husband studied engineering and working in Allfine Company at Bangalore. After my marriage, my husband took me to Bangalore and set up the family. After my marriage, my husband never treated me well for at least one month and always abusing and beating me at the instance of his mother Parasad Bharati, younger sister Asha, Asha’s husband Srinivasulu. On 2-3 occasions they bet me and sent me to my parents house by demanding that I shall bring ten lakhs rupees as additional dowry as they have to perform marriage to their sister. When I stated these things to my parents, they advised me to stay with them and arranged things and sent me to matrimonial life. My parents even paid the rent for the house at Bangalore. Despite all the efforts of my parents, there is no change in my husband. On 24-05-2008 my husband Parasad Venkata Trinath, my mother-in-law Parasad Bharati, sister of my husband Asha and Asha Husband Srinivasulu have bet and abused me and demanded that unless and until I bring ten lakhs towards additional dowry, they will not allow me to matrimonial life and sent me away from our house at Bangalore. When I stated all these things to my parents, then they advised me to give report to the I Town Police Station, Madanapalli by stating the facts. Hence, I respectfully pray you to take action against them according to law.” 7. The above complaint discloses that the allegation of the de facto complainant is that her husband ill-treated her at the instance of his mother, sister and brother-in-law and that on two or three occasions, they bet her and demanded additional dowry and that in spite of counseling by her parents, her husband did not mend his way and that on 24.5.2008, her husband, his mother, sister and brother-in- law bet her and abused her and sent her away to get additional dowry. 8. The husband of the de facto complainant is not before this court. The petitioners before this court are the de facto complainant’s mother-in-law, sister-in- law and husband of her sister-in-law. 9. The case of the de facto complainant is that the marriage of the parties was performed on 9.4.2007 at Vijayawada and thereafter, her husband took her to Bangalore and set up the family. There is no averment to show that along her husband, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and her husband were also residing at Bangalore. The allegation is that on two or three occasions, they along with her husband bet her and set her away to her parents house and that on 24.5.208 also they bet her and sent her away to her parents house. When there is no averment that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law’s husband were also residing with the de facto complainant and her husband, the allegation that they bet her at Bangalore, is far from imagination. 10. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the A-3 and A-4 are residing at Vijayawada and that A-4 is a practicing Advocate at Vijayawada and he also produced copies of ration card and certified copy of the bail bounds executed in a criminal case to which A-4 stood as surety on the relevant date and he has taken this court to the endorsement made by the court in the said documents. In the grounds of the criminal petition, he had specifically made this averment. The counsel for the de facto complainant had not disputed this fact by filing any counter affidavit. Therefore, in the absence of specific averment made in the complaint by the de facto complainant that A-2, A-3 and A-4 were residing with them at Bangalore and in view of the averment made that they are residing at Vijayawada, it can safely be inferred that their presence at Bangalore to subject the de facto complainant to cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of I.P.C. for demanded additional dowry, cannot be believed and these allegations, on the face of it, do not constitute offence as alleged by the de facto complainant. 11. The Apex Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. GOURISHETTY MAHESH[3] held as under: “12. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitutes any offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal bar provided in any of the provisions of the code or in any other enactment under which a criminal proceedings is initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceedings is maliciously instated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Court may step in. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.” 12. From the above judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence, then it the open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence as envisaged under Section 498-A of I.P.C., in so far as the A-2, A-3 and A-4 are concerned and hence in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same is quashed against them. 14. With regard to jurisdiction, the Apex Court in the decisions reported in SMT. SUJATA MUKHERJEE v. PRASHANT KUMAR MUKHERJEE (1 supra) and BHUDEB CHANDRA KARMAKAR v. STATE OF W.B., (2 supra), held that where the de facto complainant resides and files complaint complaining ill-treatment by in–laws and husband, the Magistrate of local area where the complaint is lodged has territorial jurisdiction, since she is suffering mental agony at her parents house and this constitutes continuing offence as per clause ( c ) of Section 178 and hence she can maintain a complaint at the place of her resident. Therefore, the objection of the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction, cannot be sustained. 15. It is made clear that the proceedings against A-1 shall continue in accordance with law and any observation or finding in this order shall not influence the criminal proceedings to be proceeded against A-1. 16. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 28—09—2011 [1] AIR 1997 SC 2465 [2] (2001)9 SCC 226 [3] 2010(2) ALD (Crl) 584 (SC)