THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.P.NO.7970 OF 2008 ORDER Petitioner-A1 to A4 in C.C.No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the said C.C against them. T h e de facto complainant, who is the wife of petitioner-A1, had filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC against all the petitioners-accused. The police after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet in the said Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners- A1 to A4 submits that there are disputes between the de facto complainant and petitioners-accused. He further submits that petitioner-A1 had filed a divorce petition in OP No.47 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peleru of Chittor District and the said Court granted divorce. After granting of divorce, the de facto complainant-wife has preferred this complaint under Section 498-A IPC as a counter blast. He further submits that as per the complaint, petitioners-A1 to A4 are alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant, who is the wife of petitioner-A1, at Bangalore and also at Tirupati. However, she has filed the complaint under Section 498-A IPC at Pakala, Chittoor District and as such, he contends that the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala would have no jurisdiction. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Y.Abraham Ajith & others v., Inspector of Police, Chennai and another[1] On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the criminal petition is devoid of merits since the de facto complainant had preferred the complaint under Section 498-A IPC at Pakala, Chittoor District, where she resides, the powers under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. It is a settled law that a married woman can file a petition under Section 498-A IPC anywhere in India where she resides and where part of cause of action arises. As per charge sheet all the petitioners-accused are also alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant at Kothaindla Colony, near Railway Station, Domalcheruvu, Pakala Mandal. In view of the above, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J rkk Dated: 10-11-2011 [1] AIR 2004 SC 4286