Judgment:
ORDER
G.V. Seethapathy, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 in Cr. No. 498 of 2008 on the file of Sastyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, the police registered FIR in Cr. No. 498 of 2008 against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The first petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The 2nd petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner, 3rd petitioner is the brother of first petitioner. According to the complainant, her marriage with first petitioner-A.1 was performed on 12.04.2006 and at the time of the marriage, Rs. 2,00,000/- cash was given towards pasupu kumkuma, one gold chain and ring and other household articles wroth Rs. 1,00,000/- and adapaduchu lanchanam of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- worth gold jewellery and Ac.3.00 of agricultural land. It is further alleged by the complainant that few days after the marriage, A.1 developed illicit intimacy with another woman and subjected the complainant to harassment and left her at her parents' house till 20.06.2007 and took her to Hyderabad on 21.06.2007. But there also he continued harassment demanding additional dowry or else to agree for divorce. The complainant further alleges that when she informed about the same to the petitioners 2 and 3, they also supported A.1. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 01.10.2008 all the accused subjected the complainant physical and mental harassment demanding to bring additional dowry and she made telephone call to her father and on his arrival, she informed him about the harassment meted out to her and when the complainant's father questioned the accused about the same, they beat the complainant and sent out of the house.
4. A perusal of the complaint thus disclose that specific allegations pertaining to the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC have been made against all the accused. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be ascertained only after due investigation.
5. The other ground on which the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings is that all the alleged acts of ill-treatment and harassment have taken place only at Hyderabad and no part of the cause of action arose at Vijayawada and therefore, the police at Vijayawada have no jurisdiction to investigate and such investigation, without jurisdiction, would amounts to abuse of process of law.
6. In that connection, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in 'Y. Abrahmam Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai : 2004CriLJ4180 wherein the Apex Court held on the facts of the said case that 'no part of cause of action arose at Chennai and therefore the Magistrate at Chennai has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and therefore the proceedings were quashed and the complaint was directed to return to the complainant for filing the same in the appropriate Court, if so she choose'.
7. In the above case, the application was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in CC No. 3532 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. A private complaint was filed by the Inspector of Police, which was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police and after investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police and the accused filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint as no part of cause of action arose at Chennai. When the complaint itself discloses after 15.04.1997 the complainant left Nagercoil and came to Chennai and staying there and all the alleged incidents took place at Nagercoil, the complainant therein contended that part of cause of action arose at Chennai as well and some of the alleged offences are continuing offences and by virtue of Section 178[c] Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate at Chennai was having jurisdiction. The above decision related to the case where territorial jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the case was involved. Further on facts, it was found in the above case that the complainant herself left the house of the husband at Nagercoil on 15.04.1997 and came to Chennai. On the factual scenario in the above case, it was held that logic of Section 178[c] Cr.P.C. would not apply.
8. In the present case, the investigation is still pending and no charge sheet is filed before any Court. FIR is made only to set the criminal law into motion. FIR need not contain all the details of all the incidents and events that have taken place since the time of the marriage, till lodging of the complaint, which constituted the ingredients of the alleged offence. If the investigation discloses that any incidents or events have taken place at Vijayawada, attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC, the police at Vijayawada would certainly have jurisdiction to investigate. Even otherwise, going by the averments in the complaint, the marriage took place at Vijayawada and cash, jewellery and other items by way of dowry and lanchanams were given at the time of the marriage and A.1 having developed illicit intimacy with another woman, subjected the complainant to harassment in various ways and left her at her parental house till 20.06.2007 at Vijayawada. Thus, according to the complainant, the conduct of A.1 in having illicit intimacy with another woman and leaving the complainant at her parental house at Vijaywada, constituted the acts of ill-treatment and harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Further, the allegation in the complaint even after shifting to Hyderabad, harassment over demand for additional dowry continued unabated and having no other alternative and unable to bear the physical and mental harassment, she had complained to her father and when he questioned the accused about the same, the complainant was beat and sent out of the house. It is therefore not a case where the complainant has voluntarily left the house of the accused on her own but it is a case where she was beat and sent out as per the averments in the complaint, and having no other go she had to take shelter in her parents house at Vijayawada. The mental harassment on account of continued desertion of the complainant by the husband for no fault of her therefore, continued to be suffered by the complainant even while she was staying at Vijayawada and subjecting the complainant to such harassment over demand for additional dowry would certainly attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. The harassment need not always be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. When such harassment is meted out with a view to coerce the complainant to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of her failure to meet such demand, it amounts to cruelty and the husband and his relative, whoever subjects the woman to cruelty commits offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The continued desertion of the complainant by the husband demanding her to bring additional dowry or asking her to agree for divorce in the event of her failure to meet such demand would certainly constitutes mental harassment and the complainant continues to be subjected to such harassment even while staying at her parental house at Vijaywada, where she was forced to take temporary shelter having no other alternative. The decision cited is therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the facts and circumstances in the present case, it must be held that part of cause of action arose at Vijayawada and the offence alleged under Section 498-A IPC is found to be continuous offence in the present case and therefore, the police at Vijaywada are certainly entitled to investigate.
9. The other decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in 'Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan : 2008CriLJ3494 is also a case where after investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and it was contended by the accused that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of another Court. The said decision is also not applicable to the present case where investigation is still pending and no charge sheet is filed as yet.
10. In 'Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : (1998)8SCC728 , the Apex Court held as follows:
The High Court committed a grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the function of the courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station officer of a particular police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section 178[c] Cr.P.C., when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stages of investigation that the S.H.O., Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate. The High Court has completely over looked the said embargo when it entertained the petition of respondent 2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
11. In 'Neraturi Chakradhar Rao v. State House Officer, Huzurnagar 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 15 (AP)', this Court after referring to the above decision of the Apex Court and also the decision in 'Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal 1999 (2) ALT 405 ', held that 'the petitioners cannot seek to quash the proceedings initiated against them altogether. However, it is open to them to take such a plea before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, before the trial is commenced and if the learned Magistrate is convinced about the want of territorial jurisdiction, he can follow the procedure as envisaged under Section 201 of the Code.'
12. In the above case also after investigation into the private complaint referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Huzurnagar. It is held that 'on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, the proceedings cannot be quashed altogether and such a plea can be taken before the learned Magistrate before the trial is commenced'.
13. In the present case, the matter is only at the threshold stage of investigation and in the light of the proposition laid in Satvlnder Kaur's case (3rd supra), further investigation cannot be quashed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction for the police to investigate.
14. In the circumstances and on the facts of the present case, it is held that there are no valid or justifiable grounds to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further investigation in Cr. No. 498 of 2008 of Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada.
15. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.