IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.1616 OF 2007. Date:05.02.2010 Between:- Nagineni Phani Bharat and others ..Petitioners And The State through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 (A1 to A4) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.176 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sathupalli, Khammam district relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. On report given by the 2nd respondent, the V.M.Banjar police registered case in Crime No.37 of 2006, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate at Sathupalli against A1 to A4. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent. A2 is father, A3 is mother and A4 is brother of A1. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place on 01.11.2003 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Jamalapuram. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, father of the 2nd respondent gave promissory note to the accused as promised by him and sent the 2nd respondent to Hyderabad with A1 for conjugal life and that A1 obtained certificates of the 2nd respondent promising to send her for higher studies and that all the accused were living together in a joint family and that after three months of the marriage, A1 started harassing the 2nd respondent for more dowry from her parents as he had no job and that when it was informed by the 2nd respondent to her parents-in-law, they also began harassing her both mentally and physically supporting A1 and that efforts of the 2nd respondent’s parents to settle the matter became frustrated and that finally, on 20.02.2006, A1 to A4 beat the 2nd respondent and forcibly necked her out from their residential house at Hyderabad demanding her to bring more dowry. The 2nd respondent lodged the report with V.M.Banjar police as she was then residing with her sister and brother-in-law in V.M.Banjar village after she was driven away from Hyderabad. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the alleged cause of action by way of the alleged harassment of the victim in this case took place only at Hyderabad and that therefore, the Court at Sathupally has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case and that in case the charge sheet has to be entertained, it should be filed only at Hyderabad where cause of action arose. It is also contended that since divorce petition filed by A1 against the 2nd respondent is pending in the Family Court, Rangareddy District, in case this Court intends to transfer the case on the point of jurisdiction, it may be transferred to any Court in Rangareddy District Headquarters. Reliance was also placed on MANISH RATAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER[1] on this aspect. In that reported decision, the Supreme Court while considering ambit of sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that in a case under Section 498-A I.P.C., the wife cannot institute criminal litigation at her place of residence in Datiya and that it should have been instituted in the Court at Jabalpur where the alleged cause of action by way of harassment took place. In that view of the matter, the present case filed in Sathupally Court is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same because no part of cause of action for the offences took place within Sathupalli jurisdiction. Cause of action for offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. occurred at Hyderabad whereas marriage between the 2nd respondent and A1 took place at Jamalapuram within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court at Madhira of Khammam district where promissory note was executed by father of the 2nd respondent in favour of A1 and was handed over as per their pre- marital agreement. Therefore, cause of action for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also occured at Jamalapuram within the territorial jurisdiction of Madhira Court. Therefore, the case is liable to be transferred either to Hyderabad Court or to Madhira Court. Since the wife/2nd respondent is now stated to be residing at Penuballi in her parents’ house and also at her sister’s house at V.M.Banjar village in Khammam district, I propose to transfer the case to Madhira Court in the same Khammam district. On the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the question of quashing proceedings in this case may not arise at all. The only consequence of lack of territorial jurisdiction is to see that the matter is made over to a Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. 4. In the result, C.C.No.176 of 2006 is transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sathupally to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Madhira for disposal according to law. The petition is ordered accordingly. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 5th February 2010 AMD [1] (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 262