HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6723 OF 2007 DATE:18-11-2010 BETWEEN Smt. Kota Kavita …Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6723 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the orders of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasthi, dated 15.10.2007 in allowing Crl.M.P.No.1826 of 2007 in C.C.No.166 of 2004 filed by the second respondent-husband and returning the charge sheet for want of jurisdiction to file before the appropriate Court. In spite of adjourning the matter twice to assist the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to assist the Court nor substantiated the plea of the petitioner-wife that the Court at Srikalahasthi which tried the case will have the jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-wife lodged a complaint for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which, the police after due investigation, laid the charge sheet before the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikalahasthi and that the learned Magistrate took it on file as C.C.No.166 of 2004. After examination of four witnesses, the second respondent-husband filed Crl.M.P.No.1826 of 2007 stating that the alleged cruelty meted out to the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC has taken place while they were residing at Tirupathi and therefore, the Court at Srikalahasthi will not have jurisdiction to try the case and in support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Y.Abraham Ajit and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another[1]. The learned Magistrate found favourable with the submission made by the second respondent-husband and by the impugned order, returned the charge sheet to be filed before the competent Court. This Court called for a report from the Magistrate and the information received by this Court on the administrative side reveals that after the charge sheet was returned to the police with a direction to file before the jurisdictional Court, it is not known where it was filed and where it is pending. The complaint allegations and charge sheet clearly discloses that the marriage between the parties was performed at Sreerama Kanyaka Parmeswari Choultry, Bahadurpet, Srikalahasthi, that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner-complainant gave Rs.15,000/-; 11 soverns of gold as dowry to the bridegroom apart from Rs.30,000/- towards marriage expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards household articles. After the marriage, the couple lived happily at Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati. Later the second respondent-husband started suspecting the character of the petitioner-wife, abused her, beat her and demanded for additional dowry and finally, she was necked out from the house. On 14.4.2004 elders conducted mediation at the house of the parents of the petitioner-wife by calling over the accused and his family members to the mediation. Further on 19.7.2004 the petitioner-wife went to the house of the second respondent-husband but she was not allowed into the house and necked out from the house. Since then, the petitioner has been staying with her parents along with her children at Srikalahasthi. The Supreme Court in Manish Ratan and Others v. State of M.P. and another[2] after referring to the decision rendered in Y. Abraham Ajith (1 supra) and after referring to the statutory provisions under Section 178 Cr.P.C. held that an offence cannot be held to be a continuing one only because the complainant-wife is forced to leave her matrimonial home. The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was in error in coming to the conclusion that the wife has been forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of torture by her in-laws, which amounted to mental cruelty and harassment which continued even at the place of her father at Datia and therefore, the offence may be inquired into and tried also at Datia Court and accordingly held that the Datia Court will not have any jurisdiction. The same is not the case on hand. For the offence charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court at Srikalahasthi will definitely have jurisdiction because the marriage was performed at Srikalahasthi and the dowry was paid at Srikalahasthi. Further the learned Magistrate has also accepted that the petitioner as P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that on 14.7.2002 when she came back to her parents house, L.Ws.4 to 6 held mediation and in the said mediation held at her parents house in Srikalahasthi, the second respondent-husband demanded cash and gold and if that version is taken into account, no doubt, the Court at Srikalahasthi would definitely have the jurisdiction to entertain the case, but having held so, the learned Magistrate ordered for return of the charge sheet without taking into consideration of the other offences i.e. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for which the second respondent has been charged, which has taken place within the jurisdiction of Srikalahasthi Court. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikalahasthi is directed to receive the charge sheet which was returned and decide the case within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor shall direct the police concerned to re-submit the charge sheet with all necessary papers to the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikalahasthi forthwith. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Tsr. [1] 2004(2) ALD (Crl) (SC) [2] (2007) 1 SCC 262