Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1509 (AP)

Paruchuri Ashok Kumar v. State Of A. P.

2003-12-05

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2003
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 393 of 2003 on the file: of the Court of V Additional metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur, registered under Sections 498a IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the wife of the first petitioner filed a false case against the petitioners because first petitioner filed o. P. No. 210 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District for divorce against her, and therefore, complainant against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) PRINCIPLES for quashing of a complaint are well known. When the allegations in the complaint show commission of an offence, question of quashing the complaint does not arise. In this case, the allegations in the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded, prima facie, disclose commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners. So, the complaint cannot be quashed. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since all the incidents of alleged harassment, etc. , took place in Hyderabad only, and since the petitioners are all residents of Hyderabad, deliberately with a view to harass the petitioners, the wife of the first petitioner gave a report at Guntur and in the circumstances of the case the Court at guntur has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. ( 5 ) OFFENCES arising under Section 498- a IPC and the provisions of Dowry prohibition Act would usually be committed at the place of residence of the husband and his parents and also at the place of residence of the parents of the wife, as it is the parents of the wife that have to meet the demand for dowry by the husband and his relatives as their demand would have to reach the parents of the wife for its being met. It cannot, therefore, be said that cause of action arose only at the place of residence of the husband and relatives, but not the place of residence of the parents of the wife. So, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners that the Court at Guntur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. So, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners that the Court at Guntur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. ( 6 ) SINCE all the petitioners are residents of Hyderabad and since the police after investigation laid the charge-sheet and hence all prosecution witnesses would be entitled to T. A. and D. A. , in my considered opinion, this is a fit case for transferring the proceedings to the Court of DC Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad from Guntur Court. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, C. C. No. 393 of 2003 is withdrawn from the file of the Court of v Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, guntur and is transferred to the Court of dc Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for disposal according to law. The petition is disposed of accordingly.