Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1200 (AP)

Shivkumar Ganesha Murthy v. State of A. P.

2007-12-07

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2007
ORDER - This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 in CC No.204 of 2007 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records. 3. The 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint against the first petitioner-A.1 her husband and petitioners 2 and 3 parents of A.1, alleging offence under Section 498-A IPC and the same was registered by the police as Cr.No.600 of 2006. After due investigation, police filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the above said offence before X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same in CC No.204 of 2007. The accused filed the present petition seeking to quash further proceedings against them. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as no part of cause of action arose within his jurisdiction and all the alleged events have taken place either at Pune or Chennai. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand would contend that the physical and mental harassment of the 2nd respondent by the petitioners continued even after she was sent out of the house at Hyderabad, where she has been taking shelter with her parents and therefore part of the cause of action has certainly arisen at Hyderabad and the learned Magistrate has got every jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 5. A perusal of the complaint reveals graphic description of the alleged events and instances of physical and mental harassment, the complainant and her child were subjected to by the petitioners over demand for additional dowry and also otherwise. Very serious and specific allegations of physical and mental harassment are made in the complaint and also in the charge sheet, clearly attracting the ingredients of both clauses of Section 498-A IPC. The fact that after the complainant was driven out of the matrimonial home she having no other option had taken shelter in her parental home for her sustenance and support, does not put an end to the harassment physical and mental that she was subjected to. The fact that after the complainant was driven out of the matrimonial home she having no other option had taken shelter in her parental home for her sustenance and support, does not put an end to the harassment physical and mental that she was subjected to. The alleged physical acts of assault and other modes of harassment narrated in the complaint continued to haunt her aggravating the mental agony and sense of insecurity, which is nothing, but continuance of mental harassment. It is no solace for a married woman driven out of the matrimonial home and taking shelter in her parental house, having no other go, to say that she got liberated from the harassment. A young woman with a kid in her lap cannot be expected to initiate proceedings and fight litigation against the petitioners at an alien place like Pune or Chennai, simply because she happened to live in those places for some time with her husband. It is not as though the harassment was stopped after she was driven out of the house and after she started taking shelter in her parents' house at Hyderabad. In fact, the first petitioner, even according to the complaint, is also staying at Hyderabad. The continued desertion by the first petitioner, of the complainant on the ground of failure to meet the demand of additional dowry, amounts to continuance of the harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The alleged offence is therefore a continuing one and has not ceased to exist after she was driven out of the matrimonial home. 6. In 'Ramesh Venkat Perumal Vs. State of A.P.,1998 (1) ALD (Crl.) 122 (AP) = 1998 (1) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP), this Court held as follows: "If a married woman is appears to stay at her parents house in order to meet his illegal demands of her husband or relatives of her husband, naturally she suffers mental agony even during her stay at her parents house and hence, it is a continuing offence and continues during her stay at her parents house." 7. In 'Valluri Ramachandra Rao & others Vs. State of A.P., 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 61 (AP) = 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 293 (AP), this Court reiterated the principle laid in the above decision. 8. In 'Valluri Ramachandra Rao & others Vs. State of A.P., 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 61 (AP) = 2007 (1) ALT (Crl.) 293 (AP), this Court reiterated the principle laid in the above decision. 8. In the light of the above decisions and also having regard to the fact that the offence alleged is a continuing one and the alleged harassment is subsisting even after the complainant has shifted to her parental house at Hyderabad for shelter, it is held that the learned Magistrate has got jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The truth or otherwise of the allegations, however, has to be determined only after the evidence is adduced during the course of trial. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction is therefore untenable. It is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioner. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.