Criminal Appeal No. 1173 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner-I herein (A-1 in the criminal case) (for short A-1) with the 2nd respondent herein (the de facto complainant in the criminal case) (for short ‘the de facto complainant’) took place at Gutti, Anantapur District and the de facto complainant, A-1, his mother and brother i.e. the petitioners 2 and 3 herein (A-2 and A-3 in the case) (for short ‘A-2’ and ‘A-3’) never resided within the jurisdiction of the said Court or concerned police station i.e. Uppal police station, Ranga Reddy District, and no cause of action arose therein, and therefore, the learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Therefore, it is seen whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings.

As per the prosecution record, its case is as follows: A-1 married de facto complainant on 22-07-205. The de facto complainant resides at Chilukanagar, Uppal. A-1 is the resident of Hanumannagar, Varni X road, Nizamabad District. At the time of their marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.1.00 lakh, five tulas of gold and household articles to A-1 towards dowry while meeting other formalities. After the marriage, she lived in the house of her parents-in- law, at Hanumanagar. After five weeks of the marriage, A-1, A-2 and A-3 started harassing her for bringing additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs from her parents, consequent upon which, several mediations were held at the instance of her parents and relatives to settle the issue. Further, six months after the marriage A-1 to A-3 tried to kill her by pouring kerosene upon her setting her ablaze, A-1 to A-3, also harassed her on the ground that she did not beget the children. Further, on 09-12-2006, father of A-1 and A-3 i.e. husband of A-2 died and thereafter, A-1 to A-3 beat her indiscriminately and necked her out of the house and ever since she has been living in the house of her parents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has also argued the matter on the ground that the trial Court has got no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the matter placing reliance upon decisions in Y.Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai[1], Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu[2] and T.Balaji Rao v. State of A.P.[3].

3. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is observed under similar circumstances that if the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matters, those proceedings should be quashed thereby.

The record earnestly shows that no part of cause of action to file the case took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the said III Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, or the said police station whereas the record shows that she was subjected to harassment for bringing additional dowry at Hanumannagar, Nizamabad District.

In that view of the matter, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.