SIVANGALA THANDI DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali. They seek for the quashment of C.C.No.4 of 2013 on the ground that Tenali Police and Tenali Courts do not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the controversy between the petitioners on the one side and the second respondent on the other side.

(2.) A case was instituted against the petitioners arraying them as A.1 to A.4 under Section 498A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the second paragraph of the charge sheet, it was recorded that the offence took place at Hyderabad and at Mumbai and that the complainant/second respondent has been temporarily staying with her parents at Khajipeta, Tenali Mandal. It is stated that the second respondent was given in marriage to the first petitioner at Hyderabad. It is also the case of the second respondent that she and the first petitioner lived at Mumbai for sometime before the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home. From the time the second respondent was necked out from the matrimonial home, she has been staying with her parents at Khajipeta, Tenali Mandal. She lodged a complaint with Tenali Rural Police Station, which was registered as First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.121 of 2012. After due investigation, police laid charge sheet as C.C.No.4 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali.

(3.) IN Ramesh v. State of T.N., FIR was registered and later charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and u/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The major part of the overt acts was allegedly committed in Mumbai and partly in Chennai. No part of the incident occurred at Tiruchirapalli. When the case was entertained by the Courts at Tiruchirapalli, the husband approached the Supreme Court. It was held that no part of the cause of action had arisen at Tiruchirapalli and that the Courts at Tiruchirapalli did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.