IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 1454 of 2008 Between: Smt. Kancharla Bhagyamery, W/o. Ravikumar, R/o. Q.No. D/177, Dhanbad, Rudrampur, Kothagudem, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The State Rep. by its Station House Officer, Kothagudem II Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in transferring the FIR and complaint registered in Crime No. 154/2007 dated 24-12-2007 on the file of the Kothagudem-II Town Police Station, Khammam District to Amberpet Police Station of Hyderabad City as arbitrary, illegal and without power and jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the Section 498 (A) IPC and consequentially declare that the Station House Officer, Kothagudem-II Town Police Station, Khammam District only got jurisdiction to investigate the matter and also the concerned IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, Khammam District only got jurisdiction to try the offence and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is misconceived. According to the petitioner, the respondent transferred the records in Cr.No.154 of 2007 from Kothagudem II Town Police Station to Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner was married to one Kancharla Ravikumar, who is currently working as Home Guard in Neredmet Police Station, Hyderabad. The marriage occurred at Nandyal on 15.8.2007. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner resided with her parents at Qtr. No. D/177, Dhanbad, Rudrampur, Kothagudem Town, Khammam District. The petitioner’s father is an employee in Singareni Collieries at Kothagudem. Even according to the affidavit, after the marriage she and her husband lived at Neredmet, Hyderabad for a period of one month during which period the husband is alleged to have harassed her for dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner and her husband shifted from Neredmet to Amberpet, where they lived along with the husband’s sister and brother-in-law. While so, the husband and his relations are alleged to have demanded dowry and caused mental and physical harassment to the petitioner. Unable to bear the harassment, the petitioner states, she reported to her parental home in 2007. Even after her return to the parental home, the husband and his relations were allegedly raising demands of additional dowry and harassing her. On 16.12.2007, it is alleged that the husband came to the parental home of the petitioner and on the morning of 17.12.2007, quarreled with her parents; harassed her and demanded further dowry. Thereupon, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 24.12.2007 to the respondent-Police station, which was registered as Cr.No.154 of 2007. Now the respondent is stated to have transferred the records in Cr.No.154 of 2007 to the Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad, where the husband of the petitioner is stated to be a resident and working, for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner alleges that such transfer of investigation to the Amberpet Police Station, is illegal and unauthorized. The above contentions are stated to be rejected. It is trite that transfer of records for the purpose of investigation is a matter of administrative convenience apart from a question of jurisdiction. Since the substantive events/allegations of dowry harassment have occurred at Neredmet and Amberpet while the petitioner was residing with her spouse and only one incident on 16.12.2007 is stated to have occurred at the parental home at Kothagudem, the respondent in the amplitude of executive discretion might have considered it more appropriate that the investigation should be conducted in Amberpet Police Station, which certainly and demonstrably has jurisdiction in view of the allegations of dowry harassment having occurred even at Amberpet. What strategic or lawful advantage the petitioner would derive from the investigation being conducted at Kothagudem is neither pleaded nor explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Writ Petition is totally devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 30.7.2008 cvm