IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 49 OF 2012 Between:
Sanagavarapu Sadasiva Rao & Anr. … Petitioners/A2 & A3 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP … Respondents/Complainant & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P.PrabhakarReddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan for R-2 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 49 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No.
363 of 2011 on the file of Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, for alleged offences under section 498-A read with section 34 IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for petitioners mainly contended that in the entire charge sheet there is no incident referred to that took place within jurisdiction of Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada, therefore, the court at Kakinada has no jurisdiction. He submitted in the complaint three incidents are referred; one at Hyderabad and other two at Malaysia and Australia. He submitted that as per decision of Supreme Court in BHURA RAM AND ORS. V/s.
[1]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER , when the court has no
territorial jurisdiction, the complaint has to be returned to be presented before the court having jurisdiction.
4. I have perused the above referred decision. In that case, the accused therein made a request before trial court and filed an application saying that court has no jurisdiction but the said application was rejected and it was confirmed by Sessions Court. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the material on record held that the court where the complaint filed has no jurisdiction and directed the party to approach the court having jurisdiction.
5. As seen from the initial para of charge sheet, Investigating Officer stated offence took place at Sarpavaram, Kakinada also which comes within the court of Kakinada. During investigation, he has examined six witnesses and it is not known what the witnesses have stated during their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and basing on the statement of witnesses, charge sheet is filed. Admittedly, no petition is filed before trial court challenging jurisdiction.
6. Considering the material on record and submissions of both sides and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra- 1, I feel that this criminal petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the court below and urge all these grounds including jurisdiction aspect and if so advised they can also file discharge petition and that trial court shall consider the same without being influenced by disposal of this application and decide the objections including jurisdiction aspect also on merits.
7. Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners are aged persons and staying at Hyderabad and it will be difficult for them to attend for each and every adjournment but they would attend the trial court as and when their presence is necessary.
8. Considering the same, the presence of petitioners for each and every adjournment is dispensed with but however they shall appear as and when trial court feels that their physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose.
9. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
12/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 49 OF 2012
Circulation No. 83 Date: 12/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43
[1]
[2008] 11 SUPREME COURT CASES-103