( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Sec. 407 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C.), by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 19 of 2004 of P. S. Yerraguntla, Cuddapah District. They pray this Court to transfer the case file in crime No. 19 of 2004 of P. S. Yerraguntla, within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, cuddapah District, to the Court of XXII metropolitan Magistrate and Mahila Court, hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. The first petitioner married Syed rasheeda Begum, daughter of Mahboob Ali, on 27-2-2002. She (not made party to this petition) is a resident of Yerraguntla town of kamalapuram Mandal, Cuddapah District, and the marriage was performed at the said place. After marriage, Rasheeda Begum came to matrimonial home at Chilkalguda, secunderabad and started living with the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, the wife of the first petitioner stayed only for one month at Secunderabad and shifted to her native place in November, 2002, as she became sick and was not able to adjust at the matrimonial home. One year four months after going away from secunderabad, she lodged a complaint on 2- 3-2004 with P. S. Yerraguntla, who registered crime No. 19 of 2004, under Section 498 A of ipc and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition act. The petitioners assert that the marriage was strictly in accordance with Muslim Law, that no dowry was taken and that the entire money was spent by the first petitioner, and that there was no harassment of the complainant by the petitioners.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that even according to the FIR, the place of offence is Door No. 11. 1. 776/12, Chilkalguda, secunderabad and, therefore, police, yerraguntla have no jurisdiction to register the crime. Further, they contend that the complainant stayed with the accused only for one month and, therefore, the commission of offence under Section 498a of IPC does not arise. There was long delay in filing the FIR and, therefore, the complaint is malafide. The petitioners also raised various other contentions, which are not relevant for the purpose of this petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, sri Aijaz Ahmed, vehemently contends that going by the FIR, when the offence is committed at Chilkalguda, the police of yerraguntla, or the Criminal Court at kamalapuram, have no territorial jurisdiction and, therefore, the proceedings are void. Opposing the petition, the learned Additional public Prosecutor contends that the harassment meted out to the spouse by the husband and husband s family is a continuous offence and criminal action against the accused can be initiated by the wife at the place of her choice.

( 5 ) CHAPTER XX of IPC deals with offences relating to marriage. Section 498a of IPC was introduced by subsequent amendment by enacting the said provision in Chapter xxa under the title "of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband". The ingredients of the offence created by Section 498a of IPC are as under: (i) Subjecting a married woman to cruelty by husband or relative of husband; by (a) any willful conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, is cruelty; and/or (b) making any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and thereby harassing the woman with a view to coercing her or any person relating to her for any property. The demand for money or dowry subsequent to the marriage which resulted in harassment of the woman is an offence under section 498a of IPC. The harassment for dowry need not be by the husband or that with the connivance of the husband. Even a relative of the husband of the woman can be guilty of causing cruelty. In a case under section 498a of IPC, the woman may complain harassment for dowry either at the place of the husband (matrimonial home), or at the place of th