THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6794 of 2008 DATE: 08-04-2011 Between: Shiva Kumar Sharma and 4 others .. Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6794 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.891 of 2006 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short “the Act”) and after investigation filed the charge sheet against the present petitioners for the said offences. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. No representation on behalf of the respondents in spite of posting the matter today ‘for orders’. The learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that as per the allegations made in the complaint and also in the charge sheet, the entire incident has taken place at Hubli, Karnataka State and nothing has taken place within the jurisdiction of Alwal Police Station, as such the Alwal police have no jurisdiction to investigate into the case and the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It is mentioned in the charge sheet in the first paragraph itself that the offence took place at the house of the accused situated in Mela-Maya Jayanagar, Vidyanagar, Hubli of Karnataka State and also Venkatapuram, Alwal and it was mentioned that the investigation does not reveal that the respondent No.2 married with A-5 on 20.11.2003 in the presence of elders at Hubli Gokul garden function hall and at the time of marriage her parents gave a dowry amount of Rs.1,51,000/-, net cash for furniture and silver items costs Rs.50,000/-, one diamond set worth Rs.1,17,000/- to the complainant, one diamond ring was given to the complainant’s husband worth Rs.25,000/- and also 2½ tulas of bracelet and Rs.11,000/- were given to the husband of the complainant. After marriage she went to her husband’s house at Hubli alone and lived happily for about three months; after that her mother-in- law (A-2), father-in-law (A-1), sister-in-law (A-4) and her husband (A-3) and the complainant’s husband (A-5) harassed the complainant mentally and physically to get more dowry and demanded to get Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents and they never talked with her husband. Later, for the first time, her parents came to the house at Hubli and at that time forcibly got written on the paper that nothing was demanded by them. Then they sent her along with her parents. Later, again she went to Hubli and they continued their harassment demanding to get Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. When her parents have given Rs.1,00,000/- to her and they have taken all the articles and at that time the parents came there to bring her to her parents house. After two months in the month of November, 2004, she went to her husband’s house while the said persons are not allowing her to enter into the house, after some time at her request they allowed her and the said persons harassed her. Then again she came back to her parents house. Again on 25th June, 2005 she went to her husband’s house at Hubli and the accused have not allowed her to enter into the house. When she approached the local police, on the guidance of police, they allowed her into the house and they continued the same harassment. On the next day i.e. on 26th they sent her out of the house. She alone came back to her parents house. On 11.02.2006 again she went to Hubli, at that time they have not allowed to enter into the house and her husband kept her in one room of Mayura lodge. The said persons came to that room and harassed her and demanded to sign on some papers but she did not accept the same. It is also alleged that she was mental and undergoing treatment. The same was informed to her parents and they came and brought her to her parents house since then the husband did not come to her, as such A- 1 to A-5 harassed her physically and mentally demanding more money from her parents. Hence, the accused are liable for punishment under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. Therefore, as per the above allegations made in the charge sheet, all the alleged incidents have taken place at Hubli in the house of the accused and it is not the case of the complainant or the prosecution that the harassment continued when she came back to her parents house at Alwal. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that as no incident has taken place within the jurisdiction of the Court at Medchal or Alwal Police Station, they cannot take cognizance of the said offence and file charge sheet and in support of the said contention he relied upon a decision rendered in STATE OF M.P. v. SURESH KAUSHAL AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Apex Court held as under: “Criminal case registered at the instance of the respondent-complainant against her husband and husband’s sister for offences under Sections 313 and 498-A r/w S. 34 IPC – Most of the acts alleged against the accused including physical torture to complainant when she was in the family way took place in the nuptial home at Indore where the couple resided after marriage, but later she had been taken back to her parental house at Jabalpur – Miscarriage took place while she was at Jabalpur – Hence, Court of Session at Jabalpur had jurisdiction to try the case”. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rendered in RAMESH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU[2], wherein the Apex Court held as under: “Territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate – Offence of cruelty to wife and demand of dowry – Most of the acts were committed at place ‘M’ – Part of it was committed at place ‘C’ – Court at place ‘T’ where wife was residing with her parents has no jurisdiction – Complaint transferred to Magistrate at ‘C’ in view of pendency of matrimonial petitions at ‘C’.” The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is rendered in BHURA RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[3], wherein the Apex Court held as under: “All alleged acts as per complaint relating to offence U/s 498-A I.P.C. took place in State of Punjab – Complaint filed in Court in State of Rajasthan where complainant residing with her maternal relations – No cause of action arose in Rajasthan – Magistrate at that place had no jurisdiction to deal with said matter”. Therefore, in view of the above said decisions, unless the cause of action arose the Court at Medchal has no jurisdiction to entertain the charge sheet filed by the police of Alwal. As already observed above, all the incidents, as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, have taken place i.e. with regard to demanding dowry, harassing the complainant, at Hubli and nothing has happened at Always after she came back to her parents house at Alwal. Therefore, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Alwal Police Station. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amount to abuse of the process of law. In view of the above said decisions, the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.891 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District is liable to be quashed. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for quashing the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.891 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 08-04-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6794 of 2008 DATE: 08-04-2011 MR [1] (2003)11 Supreme Court Cases 126 [2] 2005 CRI.L.J. 1732 [3] 2008 CRI.L.J. 3494