THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.620 of 2008 Between: 1. Md. Fayazuddin & Ors. ….Petitioners and 1. State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through the SHO, Dharmavaram P.S., Ananthapur District & Anr. ….Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.620 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out by the accused persons in C.C.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District, with a prayer to quash the proceeding therein. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Criminal Petition by the petitioners/accused are: Mrs.Noor Zeba was married to Md.Fayazuddin-1st petitioner herein on 25.01.2004 at Dharmavaram. After the marriage, she joined with her husband for marital life at Anantapur. She lived with her husband at her in-laws house at Anantapur for 10 days. According to her, her husband and her mother-in-law ill-treated her, her brother and her parents. She tolerated ill-treatment with the fond hope of securing better situations during the course of time. She and her husband left for Channai where they stayed together. According to her, she was subjected to harassment on the ground of additional dowry. She gave birth to a female child in the month of March, 2005. Her husband did not care to come to her to see the child. Mediations through elders to make her husband to take her and her child in to his company proved to be futile. On 27.05.2006 she along with her brother Allabhakshu went to Chennai to join with her husband, but her husband, her in-laws and sister-in-law did not permit her to enter into the house and instead they beat her brother mercilessly. There being no alternative to her, she returned to her parents house at Dharmavaram and has been residing with her parents. She presented a complaint before Police on 07.06.2006. The Station House Officer, Dharmavaram P.S. received the report and registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2006. After due investigation, the Station House Officer, Dharmavaram P.S. filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C.No.220 of 2007. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioners with the prayer stated supra. 3. Initially, the de facto complainant was not impleaded as a party in the petition. An application being Crl.M.P.No.587 of 2008 came to be filed by the petitioners to implead the de facto complainant as 2nd respondent in the petition. The said application came to be allowed on 08.02.2008. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even if the complaint averments are taken as true, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram and therefore, very taking of cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, is contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in which case, the proceedings in C.C.No.220 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. A further submission has been made that report submitted by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant before the Station House Officer, Dharmavaram P.S. and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation do not disclose of the dowry demands allegedly made by the petitioners herein and in which case, the prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC amounts to abuse of process of Court. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai[1] and the judgments of this Court in K.Ramakrishna Reddy v. Smt. K.Padmavathi[2]; T.Balaji Rao v. State of A.P.[3] 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant contends that the marriage between the parties has been held at Dharmavaram and because of the ill-treatment and harassment meted out by her in the hands of the petitioners, who are no other than her husband and relations of her husband, she had come to her parents house at Dharmavaram and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, has got jurisdiction to try the case. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of this Court: 1) M.Sridhar Reddy v. State of A.P.,[4] 2) Ramesh Venkat Perumal v. The State of A.P.[5] 3) Syed Khaja Mohiuddin v. State of A.P.[6] 4) Sistu Pullam Raju v. State of A.P.[7] 5) Shivkumar Ganesha Murthy v. State of A.P.[8] 6) Valluri Ramchandra Rao v. State of A.P.[9] 7. The marriage between the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner was solemnized on 25.01.2004 at Dharmavaram. A female child was born to them out of the wedlock. 2nd petitioner is the father; 3rd petitioner is the mother; 4th petitioner is the brother and 5th petitioner is the sister of 1st petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant. In a way, petitioners 2 to 5 are the relations of the husband of the de facto complainant. It is the version of the de facto complainant that after the marriage, she stayed at her in-laws house for few days at Anantapur and thereafter at Chennai with her husband. It is also her case that during her stay at her in-laws house at Anantapur, her husband and relations of her husband ill-treated her and continued the ill-treatment even after joining with her husband at Chennai. She made her efforts to join with her husband after the birth of a female child, but her husband and relations of her husband prevented her from entering into the matrimonial home and there being no alternative to her, she returned to her parental home at Dharmavaram. She presented a report before the Station House Officer, Dharmavaram, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.93 of 2006 against the petitioners herein. After due investigation, the Station House Officer, Dharmavaram filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, who took the charge-sheet on file as CC No.220 of 2007. 8. The core issue involved in this Criminal Petition is, whether the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, has jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners herein? 9. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, and therefore, very taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners herein is contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C. 10. Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. According to Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it has been committed. According to Section 178 Cr.P.C., if the offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, such offence may be tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Section 179 Cr.P.C. deals with cause and effect. Where an act has been committed at one place but the consequence has ensued at a different place, that offence may be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such an act has been committed or consequence ensued. 11. Chapter XIV of the Code deals with cognizance to be taken by the Court and the limitations engrafted thereon. Section 190 thereof reads that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts; upon a police report; and upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge. Chapter XV of the Code deals with complaints to Magistrates. If the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a complaint field before him, he shall examine the complainant except in cases where the complainant is a public servant. If for any reason, the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence and when the complaint is filed before him, the Magistrate shall return the complaint for presentation to the proper Court as per Section 201 of the Code. 12. The scope of Sections 178 and 179 in Chapter XIII of the Code fell for consideration in Sistu Pullaram Raju’s case (7 supra). After considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.Abraham Ajith’s case (1 supra), on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, has held as hereunder: “23. The provisions of the Sections 177 and 179 Cr.P.C. do not trammel the powers of any court to take cognizance of the offence. The only restriction contained in Section 190 for the Court to take cognizance is subject to the provisions of that Chapter wherein Section 190 occurs. 24. In Satvinder Kaur V. State[10] the Apex Court had to consider the effect of lack of territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence by the Police, having regard to the provisions of Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In para 10 the Apex Court held thus: “It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the officer can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate.” 25. However, in Y.Abraham Ajith V. Inspector of Police, Chennai,[11] the Supreme Court has taken a different view. Having regard to the fact situation obtaining in that case that since no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore the concerned Magistrate in Chennai had no jurisdiction, the proceedings before him were quashed by the Apex Court and the complaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court. In para 9 the Apex Court while dealing with its various earlier judgments to cull out the exact meaning of the expression ‘ordinarily’ had to observe thus: “exception implied by the word ‘ordinarily’ need not be limited to those specifically provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same court. No such exception is applicable to the case at hand”. It is obvious that the Apex Court proceeded mainly with the fact situation obtaining in that case. It may be mentioned here that two judgments of the Apex Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry’s case and Satvinder Kaur’s case have not been referred to in that case. The Apex Court further has not considered the provisions of Section 201, 462 and the scheme of the code. 26. Very recently the Apex Court in Ramesh V. State of Tamil Nadu [12] had to again consider a question of territorial jurisdiction. In the process, the Apex Court considered its earlier judgment in Y.Abraham Ajith’s case referred to supra. Having regard to the facts, namely, background and history of litigation, the prima facie view, the Apex Court on territorial jurisdiction and taking an overall view of the convenience of both the parties, it was felt that the criminal case pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli, who had no territorial jurisdiction and the matrimonial case filed by the husband at Mumbai should both be tried at Chennai and eventually directed that the criminal case shall be transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli to Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chennai and simultaneously the matrimonial case shall also be transferred to Principal Family Court at Chennai. “ 13. I n Ramesh Venkat Perumal’s case (5 supra), Syed Khaja Mohiuddin’s case (6 supra) and Shivkumar Ganesha Murthy’s case (8 supra), this Court has taken a consistent view that an aggrieved woman can file a complaint under Section 498-A IPC at the Police Station where she resides and the Court having jurisdiction over the said place can try the offence. Section 179 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that that if the offence is committed in one place and the consequence of such offence has ensued in another place, the Court within whose jurisdiction such a thing was done or the Court where the consequence has ensued have jurisdiction. The three provisions, namely, Sections 177 to 179 Cr.P.C. indicate that in the case of offence under Section 498-A IPC, the case can be filed by the aggrieved wife/woman at a place where the demand was made for dowry or property thereby causing cruelty and also at a place where the woman was forced to live, that is to say, the consequence that ensued as a result of cruelty. 14. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in K.Ramakrishna Reddy’s case (2 supra) and T.Balaji Rao’s case (3 supra), Section 179 Cr.P.C. has not been considered. In the subsequent decisions, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, Section 179 Cr.P.C. has been considered and held that an aggrieved woman can file a complaint at the police station where she resides and the Court having jurisdiction over the said place can try the offence. 15. In view of the above discussion, I find that the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram, has jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 08.02.2008 shall stand vacated. (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.) Date:02nd August, 2010. Cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.620 of 2008 Date:02nd August, 2010 [1] AIR 2004 S.C. 4286 [2] 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 389 (A.P.) [3] 2006 Crl.L.J. 3799 [4] 1996 (2) ALT (Crl.) 735 (DB) (AP) [5] 1998(1) ALT (Crl.) 1 (A.P.) [6] 2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 459 (A.P.) [7] 2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 153 (A.P.) [8] 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 181 (A.P.) [9] 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 293 (A.P.) [10] AIR 1999 SC 3596 [11] AIR 2004 SC 4286 [12] AIR 2005 SC 1989