IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3293 of 2010 Between: K.Parvathi and two others. … Petitioners And The State of A.P., L.B.Nagar Police Station and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3293 of 2010 ORDER:- Father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.8 of 2010 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Cyberabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 I.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no specific allegations were made against A2 to A4 either in F.I.R. or in charge sheet and that vague and omnibus allegations were made against A2 to A4 without mentioning any dates or particulars. It is further contended that the alleged harassment took place either at Visakhapatnam or at Pulgaon of Wardha District, Maharastra state and that the Court at Cyberabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. In case the Court at Cyberabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case, then it is for the petitioners to take steps before the lower court for return of the complaint/charge sheet for representation to proper court. At any rate, it is no ground for quashing entire proceedings in the criminal case. Specific allegations of harassment and demand of dowry were made by the de facto complainant against A2 to A4 in her private complaint/FIR in para 5 of the same. It is also alleged that A2 and A3 were telephoning to A1 at Pulgaon and were instigating A1 against the de facto complainant. Further, A2 was always abusing the de facto complainant and complaining to A1 against her. It is also further alleged that they were demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. It is contended that the de facto complainant resided with A2 to A4 only for few days after marriage. In my opinion, all the above facts are questions of fact, which have to be gone into and decided by the trial court after receiving evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial. This Court in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot go into those aspects. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J April 13, 2010 lmv