KALAPARTHI RANJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A-1 to A-3 in C.C. No. 241 of 2006 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, filed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The complaint was filed before the said trial Court at Guntur. The parents of the complainant were residing at Guntur. The accused are residents of Vijayawada. After the marriage, the complainant joined A-1 and led marital life for some time and she gave birth to a female child. She was at Mahaboobnagar for some time when A-1 was working at Mahaoobnagar. The marriage was also performed at Vijayawada. Therefore, the petitioners contended that though the complainant contended that the petitioners harassed her by pointing out that she is black and demanded to bring more dowry, none of the cause of actions arose at Guntur, therefore, the Court at Guntur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on certain judgments. i) In Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 253 = 2004 (2) ALD 491 (SC) the Supreme Court while considering the crucial question covered by Sections 177 and 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 held as hereunder:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the above judgments submitted that since the Magistrate at Guntur has no jurisdiction to try the offence, the prosecution is liable to be quashed.