IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6228 of 2009 DATE:17.03.2011 Between: M.Shakeel Ahmed Baig and 4 others …… Petitioners And Smt.Haseen Banu and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6228 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 to A-5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.774 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent/complainant is wife of A-1. A-2 and A-3 are parents, A-4 is brother and A-5 is sister of A-1. Marriage of the 1st respondent with A-1 took place on 20.03.2000. It is alleged that at the time of marriage dower amount of Rs.11,025/-, Ghoda Joda amount of Rs.20,000/- and 4 tolas of gold and other jahez articles worth Rs.40,000/- were given to A-1. It is alleged that the 1st respondent was subjected to harassment by all the accused at Kalwakurthy, at Markapur as well as at Hakimpet, Tolichowki at Hyderabad. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Court at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the complaint, the 1st respondent gave several dates and years like the year 2002, June, 2004, 18.09.2005, 10.12.2005 as the dates when the incidents took place. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is bereft of dates. Since the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C is not a particular event which took place at particular date and time and it is a course of contact during the life of the 1st respondent with the accused, non mentioning of any dates and times cannot assume much importance. This is not like an offence against human body or an offence against property where dates and times of commission of offences become relevant. 2) Sheet anchor of the petitioners’ contention is that A-1 divorced the 1st respondent on 09.02.2002 by way of pronouncing Talak and that therefore the events which are alleged subsequent to the said date cannot be taken note of, in view of Syed Hyder Hussain V. State of A.P[1]of this Court. This Court in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into defence documents filed by the petitioner and decide the question based on those documents. According to the petitioners, Khazi issued divorce certificate and pronouncement of Talak was communicated to the 1st respondent by way of registered post which was refused to be received by the 1st respondent and thereafter the 1st respondent received Meher amount and Iddat amount from the Khazi by passing an advance receipt on 14.06.202. The said contention is based on questions of fact which this Court cannot go into and decide in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the trial Court to go into those questions and decide the same, if the said point is urged and if those documents are produced and proved by the petitioners before the Magistrate by leading oral evidence in support thereof. It is sufficient to note in this petition that the allegations in the complaint taken on their face value do disclose the offences for which the complaint was filed against the petitioners. There are no grounds in law for quashing the proceedings pending in the lower Court. 3) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 17, 2011 ksh [1] 2002(2) Crimes 451