THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5170 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Sunil Sharma, S/o. Ramlal Sharma & 4 others. … Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its PP & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5170 of 2009 ORDER: The Petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A5 are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in CC.No.350 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. A2 and A3 are parents, A4 is brother and A5 is married sister of A1. There is no dispute about marriage between the 2nd respondent and A1 on 26.04.2007 at Visakhapatnam. After marriage, the 2nd respondent joined A1 at Mumbai for leading family life. It is alleged that A1 started harassing the 2nd respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- . Subsequently, A1 and the 2nd respondent shifted their residence from Mumbai to Bangalore. It is alleged that even at Bangalore, A1 continued the said demand. A2 is a resident of Sholapur in Maharashtra State. A3 is stated to be residing with her another son A4 at Pune of Maharashtra State. A5 is a resident of another house in Bangalore. On perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet as well as statements and documents filed along with the charge sheet, the entire instances of the alleged offence took place at Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is alleged that in the end of July, 2008, A1 in collusion with his relations, A2 to A5 necked out the 2nd respondent from his house at Bangalore demanding additional dowry. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent has been residing at Visakhapatnam. No part of cause of action for the offence under Section 498-A IPC took place within the jurisdiction of the lower Court at Visakhapatnam. The entire transactions constituting the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the lower Court and outside territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Placing reliance on Y.Abraham Ajit Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai[1] and Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan[2] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that since no part of cause of action for the offence under Section 498-A IPC occurred within the jurisdiction of the lower Court, the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case and that prosecution of the petitioners/A1 to A5 at Visakhapatnam becomes abuse of process of Court. It is not the 2nd respondent’s case that even after she was necked out of A1’s house in July, 2008 and she reaching at Visakhapatam, there is any continuity of cause of action at Visakhapatnam also, in the sense that any of the accused came to Visakhapatnam and harassed the 2nd respondent for the sake of additional dowry. In the absence of any such allegation in the prosecution case, the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence, the course adopted by the Supreme Court in the above two citations has to be followed by this Court. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.350 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakahaptnam. The lower Court shall return the charge sheet to the complainant and if the respondents so choose, it may be filed in appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the same according to law. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5170 of 2009 DATED: 25.02.2011 ysk 5170 of 2009 [1] (2004) 8Supreme Court cases 100 [2] 2008 CRI.L.J.3494