IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10468 of 2009 Between: Donuri Lalitha and another ... PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court while admitting the matter on 14-12-2009 ordered notice in Crl.P.M.P.No.10217 of 2009. The matter is coming under the caption ‘interlocutory’. However, at the request of the learned counsel on record the matter had been heard finally and thus, the Criminal Petition is being disposed of finally. 2. Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that even as per the allegations made in the complaint it is very clear that no part of the cause of action arose at Miryalguda and hence, for want of jurisdiction since the complaint cannot be maintained the proceedings are to be quashed. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions. 3. On the contrary Sri Laxmi Manohar Reddy representing respondent No.2 also relied on certain decisions and also placed befoe this court the order made by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda in Crl.M.P.No.1580 of 2008 in C.C.No.891 of 2007 wherein the discharge was prayed for and the said application was dismissed. The learned counsel would maintain that at any rate this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter in short referred as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had pointed out to the relevant portions of the charge sheet and would maintain that these factual controversies cannot be gone into at this stage and unless it is a clear case of inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the matter normally this court to be slow in interfering with the matter at this stage under Section 482 of the Code. 4. Heard the learned counsel on record. 5. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in FIR No.206/2007 on the file of P.S. Miryalguda town, Nalgonda District. After the filing of charge sheet, the crime is numbered as C.C.No.891/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda, for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The alleged complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent herein. 6. Further it is stated that as per the complaint lodged by the second respondent she stated that on 09-08-2006 her marriage was solemnized with A-1 Donuri Karunakar Reddy, R/o.BHEL Colony, Hyderabad in the presence of elders as per the customs prevailing in Hindu community. At the time of marriage her parents gave net cash of Rs.6,00,000/- under Pasupu Kumkum, two house plots at Hyderabad, one apartment plot, gold ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/- all worth Rs.50,00,000/- to her husband and in-laws towards dowry. After the marriage she led conjugal life at her in-laws house for ten days. Later her husband went to USA on job leaving her at in-laws house. Since then her mother-in-law Lalitha, father-in-law Narendar Reddy and brother-in-law Ravinder Reddy subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally with a demand to bring Rs.20,00,000/- towards additional dowry from her parents house in order to send her to USA, further they threatened her that if she fails to bring the said demanded amount, they would perform another marriage to her husband. Then she informed the matter to her parents over telephone, in turn her parents along with two elders Danda Sudhakar Reddy and Mamilla Narsimha Reddy came to her in-laws house and convinced them. In the month of November, 2006 her in-laws sent her to husband at USA. Her husband lead happy conjugal life for a few days, then at the instigation of her in-laws and brother-in-law over telephone, her husband started to ill-treat her physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-, her husband threatened to marry another woman at USA if she fails to bring the said additional dowry. Further her husband instructed her to ask her parents to sell out the plots given by her parents at Hyderabad and send the amount. She informed the matter to her parents over telephone, then her parents telephoned to her husband and requested him not to ill-treat her but her husband did not heed them. Her husband tried to kill her by throttling. In the month of June-2007 she informed the matter to her parents over telephone, then her husband sent her to India and on 20-06-2007 she reached India. She requested for necessary legal action against her husband, in-laws and her brother-in-law. 7. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law and the second petitioner is the father-in-law of the second respondent and those are the parents of A-1. Petitioners have been living at BHEL and sons have been residing in USA for the last four years. It is also the case of the petitioners that even assuming without admitting, that the allegations in the complaint are true, part of the offence had been committed at Hyderabad and part of the offence had been committed at USA and no part of the offence had been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Miryalguda. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on Gurmeet Singh v. State of M.P.[1] and also relied on Shakuntala Sharma v. State of M.P.[2], Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai[3] and Bhagsingh Jawaharsingh Vadhwa v. Sunita Harikishan Chugh[4]. 9. The learned counsel for second respondent strongly relied on the decision of this court in Ramesh Venkat Perumal v. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor and another[5]. Further the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1580 of 2008 in C.C.No.891 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda dated 24-04-2009 also had been placed before this court. 10. The learned Magistrate in fact had referred to the decisions reported in Nadimpalli Lakshmana Varma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another[6], Vankatapathi Naidu and others v. State of A.P., and another[7], T. Balaji Rao v. State of A.P. and another[8], Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another[9] and T.Venkateshwarlu and others v. State of A.P. rep. by P.P. and others[10]. 11. No doubt, certain submissions were made and the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda in the peculiar facts and circumstances had not taken the same as a suppression of fact. Whether it is a suppression of fact or not, in the light of the elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel and also the decisions placed before this court, the principal question which had been argued on the aspect of jurisdiction. 12. In the peculiar fact situation, it cannot be said to be a pure question of law simplicitor and this being a mixed question of fact and law. This is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. Liberty is given to the petitioners to urge on this ground at the appropriate stage. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed subject to the aforesaid liberty. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J March 17, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10468 of 2009 March 17, 2010 [1] 2006 CRI.L.J. 1390 [2] 2005 Cri. LJ 89 (MP), [3] 2004 CRI.L.J. 4180 : AIR 2004 SC 4286 [4] 1995 AIHC 5226 (MP) [5] 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 1 (A.P.) [6] 2008 (2) ALD (CRL.) 866 (A.P.) [7] 2007 (2) ALD (CRL.) 791 (A.P.) [8] 2006 (2) ALT (CRL.) 62 (A.P.) [9] 2004 (2) ALD (CRL.) 491 (SC) [10] 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.) 462 (A.P.)