HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4256 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 6/A1 to A4, A6 and A7 along with another are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is wife of A1. Their marriage took place on 07-02-2007. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents’ of the 2nd respondent gave cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 8 tolas of gold as dowry besides household articles to A1 to A6 as per demands of the accused and that subsequent to marriage, the 2nd respondent was harassed for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and that ultimately on 08.10.2007 she had to go to her parents house as she was necked out from her husband’s house. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the court of Sultanabad where CC No.43 of 2008 is pending against the petitioners is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. According to the petitioners’ counsel, marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place at Rajura in Chandrapur District of Maharashtra State and after the marriage, both of them resided together and lead family life at Rajura. It is further contended that this false case was foisted as a counterblast for Hindu Marriage petition No. 115 of 2007 filed by A-1 against the 2nd respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Truth or falsity of the allegations in the case cannot be considered and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter to be decided by the Magistrate after recording the entire evidence of both the parties during trial. 3. Allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose as to where the marriage took place and as to where the 2nd respondent and A1 resided together after their marriage. The question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed questions of fact and law. It is not a pure question of law. As per allegations in the charge sheet, A1 went to Julapalli village of Karimnagar District and abused the 2nd respondent in filthy language. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that there was a mediation between the parties at Julapally in the presence of witnesses 5 to 7 and 8 to 12, where all the accused demanded for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the said demand was complied with. Therefore, prima- facie it cannot be said that no part of cause of action in this case arose within the State of A.P. and particularly within the jurisdiction of Sultanabad court. However, this question regarding territorial jurisdiction is kept upon for decision by the Magistrate on merits as per the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the pending criminal case. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 22-10-2010 Mjl/*