IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.4819 of 2009 Between: Miriyala Ratnavathi & 2 others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.4819 of 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.3 to A.5 in Cr.No.62 of 2009 of PS Elamanchili, West Godavari district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the 2nd respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint against her husband-A.1, her brother-in-law-A.2 and the petitioners-A.3 to A.5 herein, alleging the offences under Sections 498-A, 307 read with 34 IPC and the same was registered as FIR No.62 of 2009 of Elamanchili PS. The investigation is stated to be pending. The first petitioner-A.3 is mother-in-law, 2nd petitioner-A.4 is co-sister and 3rd petitioner-A.5 is the sister-in-law of the complainant. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 took place on 30.10.2004 and at the time of the marriage, her parents gave Rs.4 lakhs as dowry, besides 15 tulas of gold. In the complaint, it is alleged that about a week after the marriage, her husband had another offer with dowry of Rs.15 lakhs and ever since the petitioners and other accused were feeling frustrated for accepting the alliance with the complainant and started harassing her to bring additional dowry. She further alleges that unable to bear the harassment, the complainant’s parents gave Rs.50,000/- to A.1 for purchase of motor-cycle, but however, they were not satisfied with the same and started taking away the salary of the complainant, who was working as Teacher. It is specifically alleged that the accused have been demanding the complainant to bring an amount of Rs.10 lakhs towards additional dowry and in the alternative to convey the complainant’s father’s land in favour of A.1 by way of registered sale deed. It is further alleged that the petitioners have left the complainant at her parents house warning that she will not be taken back to their home, unless and until the demanded amount of Rs.10 lakhs is paid. It is further alleged that on 20.06.2009 the accused pressurized the complainant to agree for divorce and they also made an attempt on her life by leaking the gas cylinder in the kitchen and she escaped providentially. It is also alleged that A.1 beat the complainant indiscriminately and sent her out of the house. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that specific allegations have been made against the accused, including the petitioners, prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the incident is alleged to have been taken place on 20.06.2009 but the complaint was made six days later on 26.06.2009. He would further submit that the alleged incident took place at the matrimonial home, within the jurisdiction of Sakinetivaripalle PS of East Godavari district, whereas the complaint was made at Elamanchili PS in West Godavari district and therefore, the police at Elamanchili has no jurisdiction to investigate the case. He would further submit that on 22.06.2009, A.1 issued a registered notice to the complainant seeking divorce by mutual consent and as a counter-blast, the present complaint was lodged on 26.06.2009. 5. The complaint contains series of events on different dates prima-facie attracting the offences under Section 498-A IPC, particularly the incident on 20.06.2009 is relevant in the context of Section 307 of IPC. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the allegations, which require investigation, proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR cannot be quashed just because there has been a delay of six days in giving the complaint. In the complaint itself, the complainant sought to explain the delay by stating that after returning from the parental house, a word was sent to the mediators, but there was no response. In a case like the present one, the delay in giving the complaint does not always prove fatal to the prosecution. 6. Even after the complainant reached her parental house at Elamanchili, the alleged offence of harassment in pursuance of the demand for additional dowry continued and therefore Elamanchili police certainly have jurisdiction to register the complaint and investigate the same, as part of the cause of action has certainly arisen within their jurisdiction. 7. The marriage has taken place on 30.10.2004. A.1 issued notice nearly five years later on 22.06.2009, that too demanding the consent of the complainant for obtaining divorce. In the notice, it is stated that the complainant did not join A.1 in the wedlock after the marriage. The notice proceeds as if the complainant never joined the matrimonial home after the marriage. The notice does not disclose since when the complainant deserted A.1. The fact that A.1 got issued registered notice on 22.06.2009 does not necessarily lead to an inference that it is a counter-blast. The complainant lodged the complaint on 26.06.2009. It is also possible that because of the alleged incident on 20.06.2009, the notice dated 22.06.2009 came to be issued by A.1. 8. It is well settled principle of law that the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and cannot be invoked to thwart the investigation, especially, when there are specific allegations prima- facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. 9. Be that as it may, having regard to the gravity of the nature of the offences alleged and also the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners and other accused, attributing specific overt acts to them with reference to the dates and events prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings against the petitioners. There are absolutely no grounds for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.62 of 2009 of Elamanchili PS. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.12.2010 bss