HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.NO.996 OF 2009 Dt.31.12.2010 Between: Mohd. Feroz Nawaz Khan and others ..Petitioners And Jabeena Begum and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.NO.996 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.84 of 2009 of Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad. Petitioners herein are all shown as accused in a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. She filed that complaint in the court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur, Cyberabad and the court referred the said complaint to the Sanathnagar Police Station for investigation and report. As already mentioned supra, all the petitioners herein are shown as A-1 to A-9 in the said case and they shall be referred to in that array. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC. It may be noted that A-1 is the husband of the complainant and A-2 and A-3 are his elder brother and sister- in-law and it appears that as the parents of A-1 are no more A- 2 and A-3 acted as elders in the family and performed the marriage of A-1 with the 1st respondent. The complaint of the 1st respondent is that all the accused harassed her for dowry. It should be noted that A-4 and A-5 are 21 years and 20 years old girls and they are said to be sisters of A-1 and they are reported to be working as Teachers. A-6 is said to be the sister of A-3 who is sister-in- law of A-1, and A-7 and A-8 are said to be her sons, while A-9 in the said is said to be mother of A-3 and A-6. Admittedly, A-6 to A-9 are shown as residents of Vikarabad which is said to be away from Hyderabad. I have gone through the allegations in the complaint and only general allegation is made with regard to the commission of the alleged offence against A-4 to A-9. It is now well settled as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it has become a practice on the part of the complainant in a case of this nature to array as many as members belonging to the family of husband and his relatives as accused as possible. In the instant case, with regard to the allegations made in the complaint, I am of the opinion that as on today no case is made out against A-4 to A-9. But, the allegations in the complaint do show offence against A-1 to A-3, which require investigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the F.I.R. in question against A-4 to A-9 is quashed and this petition is allowed partly to that extent. So far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned, the investigation may go on. It is, however, made clear that this Court cannot fetter the hands of the investigation agency and in the circumstances it is further made clear that subsequently in the course of investigation if the police happen to gather material which shows the complicity of A-4 to A-9 or any other persons about the alleged commission of offences they shall be at liberty to charge sheet them also. This criminal petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Parting with the case, learned counsel for the petitioners says that Sanathnagar Police Station has no jurisdiction to register this crime. On the other hand, Ms.Farhath Firdous, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent says that in fact in the private complaint filed before the court of learned Magistrate, a request was made to refer the matter to Miyapur Police Station, but the court referred the same to Sanathnagar Police Station. It is not known why the court referred the matter to Sanathnagar Police Station and whether a part of its territorial jurisdiction would fall within the local limits of IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur. The concerned police may get clarification on this point. Further, it should also be noted that any Police Station even without having any territorial jurisdiction could register the crime and subsequently make it over to the Police Station concerned for further necessary action. Keeping in view the above legal position, the Sanathnagar Police Station will act according to law. ____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. 31.12.2010 kpr