MOTHE RAMMOLIAN RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE offences alleged are under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners, who are the accused, is that even according to the complaint the entire acts alleged have taken place at Hyderabad and nothing has taken place at Narayankhed, and, as such, the Court at Narayankhed has no territorial jurisdiction. This position is disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) HOWEVER, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another, 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 491 (SC) = 2004 (1) DT (SC) 826 and the judgment of our High Court in T. Balaji rao v. State of A. P. and another, 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 725 (AP), it has to be held that the Court at Narayankhed has no territorial jurisdiction. Though, another judgment of our High Court in Syed Khaja mohiuddin v. State of A. P. , 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 740 = 2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 459 (AP), says that in such circumstances, the Court at Narayankhed would have territorial jurisdiction, in view of the judgment of the supreme Court and another judgment of our high Court, referred to above, it has to be held that the Court at Narayankhed has no territorial jurisdiction.