THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6501 OF 2008 Date: 24.11.2011 Between: Manjunath Patil and others …..Petitioners And Smt. Jangwad Sunitha and another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6501 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Sunil Deshpande, the learned counsel for petitioners, Sri V.Ravindranath Reddy, the learned counsel for ﬁrst respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. In this petition ﬁled under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners are seeking the relief of quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.1654 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar (trial court). The oﬀence alleged is one punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The ﬁrst petitioner is stated to be the husband and the second petitioner is stated to be mother-in-law of the de facto complainant while the third petitioner is stated to be sister of the first petitioner. 3. The main point raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter inasmuch as the incident relating to the oﬀence took place in Bangalore. A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the de facto complainant after giving birth to a baby boy, came to Hyderabad and stayed with her parents for some time and during that period also, the petitioners continued to harass her demanding additional dowry and other properties and also threatened her that her husband (the first petitioner) would desert her, if their demands are not fulﬁlled. This incident took place at Hyderabad. It must be stated that the police investigation prima facie revealed the above aspect and it therefore follows that a part of cause of action for the case or certain incidents relating to the oﬀence in question took place within the jurisdiction of the trial court. In view of this, it follows that the trial court can be said to have jurisdiction and the plea of the petitioners that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 4. Then turning to the merits of the matter, the allegations in the charge-sheet prima facie disclose the above offences. The question whether the petitioners are innocent or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. Accordingly, the relief for quashing the case is rejected. 5. Parting with the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that the petitioners 2 and 3 are ladies who are residing at Bangalore and Shimoga respectively and it is diﬃcult for them to attend the trial court for every date of hearing and requested for dispensing with their presence. Having regard to this plea, the presence of only petitioners 2 and 3 for every date of hearing before the trial court is dispensed subject of-course to the power of the trial court to summon their presence as and when it considers necessary. 6. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 24th November, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6501 OF 2008 DATE: 24.11.2011