VALLURI RAMCHANDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially, petitioners (Al to A4) moved this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.27 of 2005 on the file of Iragavaram police station registered for the offence under Section 498A I.PC. During the pendency of the proceedings, police after due Investigation laid the charge sheet for the said offence before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, who registered the same in C-C.No.54 of 2006 and issued process. In view of laying the charge sheet, Crl.M.P,No.2534 of 2006 was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.54 of 2006 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial - First Class Magistrate, Tanuku by suitably amending the original petition i.e. Crl.P.No.2099 of 2005, which has been allowed and heard the counsel on both sides. The facts which give rise to file this petition are as under;

(2.) The 1st petitioner (Al), is the husband of the 2nd respondent; whereas the 3rd petitioner (A3) is the husband of the 2nd petitioner (A2), who are residents of U.S.A. and 4th petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the 2nd respondent on 20-02-2003. Both of them are residents of K.Illindalaparru village and after the marriage both of them lived in Hyderabad for some time, thereafter, left to USA in December, 2004. While so, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the police alleging that before marriage A1 induced her parents that he has been doing job at London and at the time of marriage her parents gave 2 lakhs towards dowry and also Rs.1 lakhs towards Adabaduchulanchanams and agreed to give 10 acres of mango garden situated at Borrampalem. After the marriage, she came to know that Al did not have any job at London and when they were residing at Hyderabad, A4 instigated Al to demand for register of palm oil garden in stead of Mango garden and used to demand for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. On A1 getting visa to USA, he took the complainant along with him and they resided in the house of A2 and A3, where accused 1 to 3 harassed the complainant for registering the palm oil garden in the name of Al instead of Mango garden anal used to abuse her in filthy language and ill-treated all the while and finally necked her from the house of A2 and A3, in the result sent to India. Complainant informed the same to her father; and she also informed the weak position of her father to the accused. Al to A3 beat her and on 03-03-2005 A3 called the father of the complainant (L.W.I) and informed that Al will send the divorce notice to her. In view of the same, she lodged the above complaint which was registered as Cr.Mo.27 of 2005 and police after due investigation laid the charge sheet.

(3.) Sri T.Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that according to the complainant, harassment for dowry, if any, took place at USA as per the complaint allegations. Therefore, the police in India cannot Investigate into the said crime. The entire harassment is at the house of A2 and A3 and cause of action for initiation of the crime arose at USA but not within the territorial jurisdiction of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, therefore, it will not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter in C.C.No.54 of 2005 and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.ABRAHAM AJITH v. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AIR 2004 SC 2475 He further submitted that without there being any sanction from the Central Government police cannot investigate nor can lay the charge sheet as per proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. For the said proposition he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in SYED ASGAR v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2005 Crl.L.J 3399. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant would contend that the marriage which has taken place at K.iIIindalaparru; A1 and the complainant are residents of same village, they lived for some time at Hyderabad and thereafter left to USA. The demand of transfer of 10 acres palm oil garden in stead of Mango garden was initially made at Hyderabad and the same is continued at USA. The said demand was also made through telephone from USA to her father where she was residing. Therefore, the Court at Tanuku will have jurisdiction to try the said offence. In support of the above submissions he placed reliance on the following judgments: