IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.9715 of 2009 Between: N.V. Pawan Kumar .. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the proceedings in C.C. No.1625 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally police station filed the final report/charge-sheet in crime No.821 of 2009 alleging that the 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint on 30-06-2009 at 7.30 P.M. alleging that she was married to the petitioner herein on 20-04-2008, at which time her parents agreed to give cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, gold worth Rs.1,00,000/- and gifts as dowry. The husband was alleged to be picking up quarrels with the 2nd respondent during their marital life at Bangalore without any reason and the petitioner herein was stated to be returning home at mid nights in intoxicated state. He was complaining about receiving lesser dowry and the 2nd respondent further alleged about the mother-in-law also supporting the husband in his claims that he would have got Rs.50,00,000/- as dowry and that the 2nd respondent was not fit to be his wife. The 2nd respondent described various further incidents, which happened during the marital life at Bangalore and on 29-06-2008, the 2nd respondent’s father went to Bangalore to bring her to his home in ‘ashadamasam’. The husband was claimed to have warned the 2nd respondent even on phone on 02-07-2008 and the 2nd respondent claimed to have informed mediator Somaiah about all the harassment. The 2nd respondent further alleged that on 30-08- 2008 Pullaiah and Somaiah came to her house and at their behest her grand father Obulesu, her paternal uncle Ramachandra, her brother Prasad and her uncle Srinivasulu went for discussions, during which Sobha, who is a High Court advocate, warned them and the 2nd respondent’s father was scolded by Somaiah. The petitioner herein was alleged to be having illicit intimacy with one Chaya and hence, the complaint by the 2nd respondent to the police. On registration of the complaint, the investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the petitioner herein and remanded him to judicial custody. The investigating officer also noted that the parents-in-law were not involved and as the allegations against 6 others made by the 2nd respondent were not established during investigation, they were deleted from the case. The investigating officer had otherwise concluded the petitioner to be guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings contending that he was innocent of any offences and the 2nd respondent was not interested in him since the beginning. He was forced to file M.C.No.652 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Family Court Judge for divorce and this case was filed as a counter blast. The petitioner contended that no part of the offence took place at Hyderabad and all the incidents took place at Bangalore in the house of the petitioner. When no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Cyberabad police or the trial Court, the trial Court had no jurisdiction in the light of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While no case was made out by the 2nd respondent in respect of the alleged offences, the continuance of the proceedings against him will be an abuse of process of law and hence, he sought for quashing of the same. 4. Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor for 1st respondent and Sri S. Gnaneshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Rambabu Sambangi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard. 5. The point for consideration is whether the further proceedings in C.C. No.1625 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally are liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction ? 6. Point: The address of the accused given in the charge-sheet described him as a resident of Bangalore. The complaint by the 2nd respondent to the police itself stated that even by 2007 the petitioner herein was working in Bangalore and after the marriage the 2nd respondent and her husband went to Bangalore. All the incidents since the 2nd respondent and her husband going to Bangalore after the marriage till her return to her father’s house after 29-06-2008 were alleged to have happened at Bangalore. On return of the 2nd respondent to her father’s house at Kukatpally, Hyderabad, a telephonic conversation with the petitioner on 02-07- 2008 and a mediation on 30-08-2008 were the two incidents which were alleged to have happened concerning the marital life of the 2nd respondent at Hyderabad. During the telephonic conversation, the petitioner was claimed to have enquired about the intention of the parents of the 2nd respondent about the harassment by them and threatened the 2nd respondent. The incident on 30-08-2008 was alleged to have involved a warning by Sobha, an advocate of High Court threatening to put the family members of the 2nd respondent in jail if they were to resort to any dowry case. The abuses by the mediator Somaiah or the failure of the petitioner to receive phone calls from the 2nd respondent’s father were unrelated to any dowry or marital life of the 2nd respondent, while the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerning a woman being subjected to cruelty, cruelty having been defined by the Explanation thereunder to be either wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, mental or physical, or harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 7. In so far as the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent on 02-07-2008 or the events relating to the mediation on 30-08-2008 are concerned, the conduct of the petitioner herein was not alleged to be of such a nature as would have driven the 2nd respondent to commit suicide or such as would have caused grave danger or injury to her life, limb or health. The enquiry on telephone on 02-07-2008 was more about the consequences of the harassment earlier meted out to the 2nd respondent at Bangalore and during the incident on 30-08- 2008 the positive involvement of the petitioner herein was not even specifically alleged. Any harassment concerning any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security also does not appear to be involved in either incident. 8. While it is true that the 2nd respondent is living by the time of her complaint to the police and as of now, within the jurisdiction of Cyberabad police and the IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, none of the events, which were alleged to constitute committal of offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were, thus, claimed to have happened within such territorial jurisdiction. Apart from what was given in cash and kind at the time of the marriage not being stated to be on demand by one party against the other, but was stated to be on the parents of the 2nd respondent agreeing to pay the same at the time of the marriage, it was also not clear whether such negotiations prior to marriage leading to the settlement of alliance were within the jurisdiction of the trial Court or the prosecuting police station. 9. In that background, the principles laid down by the Apex Court more than once appear to operate to the disadvantage of the 2nd respondent. I n Y . Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police Chennai[1], the Apex Court held that after the wife left the house of the husband, when there was no demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence at Chennai, the Chennai Court has no jurisdiction. The principle that all crime is local as observed by Blackstone and uniformly followed, was referred and though a plea about continuance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was raised, the Supreme Court concluded that the cause of action as generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal, cannot on the factual scenario be considered to have arisen in any part in Chennai. 10. In Ramesh and others v. State of Tamilnadu[2], following the above decision, the Apex Court reiterated that suffice it to say that on looking at the complaint at its face value, the offences alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court at Trichy. There also, the matrimonial home was at Mumbai and there was only one allegation therein that the relations of the wife met her in-laws at a hotel in Chennai where they were staying when there was again a demand for dowry and threat to torture the wife in case she was sent back to Mumbai without the money. The Supreme Court considered that on the prima facie view taken by them on the point of territorial jurisdiction, the Court at Trichy cannot be considered to be covering the territory where any acts constituting the alleged offences were committed. 11. Again in Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan[3], the Apex Court considered a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court at Rajasthan, as no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and when all the events took place in the State of Punjab, the Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police Chennai (1 supra). 12. A learned Judge of this Court in T . Balaji Rao v. State of A.P.[4] reiterated the same principle when it was held that even if all the acts alleged in the report and in the charge sheet are taken as true, no part of cause of action relating to the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code arose within the jurisdiction of the Court at Tirupati. Accordingly, the proceedings in Tirupati were quashed by the learned Judge. 13. It is true that in Sujatha Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee[5], Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was relied on to consider conferment of jurisdiction in case of a continuing offence of maltreatment and humiliation to the wife by all the accused. That was a case where the offences involved were Sections 498A, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. There was a specific allegation against the husband going to Raipur and assaulting the wife and the incident was considered to be not an isolated event but consequential to the series of incidents taken place at Raighar. Committal of offence partly in one local area and partly in another and committal of a continuing offence in more than one local area were, therefore, considered to be attracted and as the incident at Raipur necessarily involved the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for which also the accused was prosecuted, the presumption of territorial jurisdiction in Raipur Court was not faulted. In the present case, it was only an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code that was the subject of prosecution and as already stated, either the telephonic conversation on 02-07-2008 or the mediation on 30-08-2008 cannot be construed to be an act of cruelty relating to any demand for any property or valuable security unlawfully. If it were so, the Court at Cyberabad cannot be considered to have territorial jurisdiction and on the principles settled by the Apex Court, the criminal petition has to succeed. 14. However, the adjudication herein is not an expression of opinion on the truth or otherwise of the rival contentions and without going into the merits and without prejudicing the rights of either party to take recourse to any appropriate legal remedies to which they are entitled under law in respect of the events relating to the marital life of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the proceedings in C.C. No.1625 of 2009 have to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C. No.1625 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad against the petitioner are quashed subject to the above observations. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-12-2011 Svv [1] AIR 2004 SC 4286 [2] 2005 Crl.L.J. 1732 [3] 2008 Crl.L.J. 3494 [4] 2006 Crl.L.J. 3799 [5] (1997) 5 SCC 30