A. Shankar Narayana, J.

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) requesting to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.38 of 2016 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, SPSR Nellore district.

2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 5 in the aforesaid calendar case. They alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Heard Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd petitioner is a Government employee and initially the de facto complainant also reported against brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law as accused Nos.6 & 7, who are living in Singapore, like the petitioners herein, and the investigating officer, while filing charge-sheet having found from the evidence he collected, they did not come to India since the date of marriage of accused No.1 with the de facto complainant from Singapore, deleted their names. It is, therefore, his submission that the petitioners are also similarly placed and in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 (SC) 2324 and in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2010 (SC) 3363 sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as no overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners either in the complaint or in the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and over implication of the husband's relatives with exaggerated versions of allegations, are held to be deprecated in the aforesaid decisions and sought to allow the criminal petition.

5. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that cause does not arise at SPSR Nellore District, more particularly, within the jurisdictional limits of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, and the entire allegations would show that the de facto complainant has attributed the alleged acts of cruelty or harassment said to have been meted out to her at her matrimonial house located in Maddipadu, Prakasam District. Hence, on this ground also, sought to quash the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004) 8 SCC 100, Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 103 and Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (2) SCJ 622.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh resisted the request contending that there is material to show the participation of the petitioners herein in instigating accused Nos.1 to 3. So far as the jurisdictional issue is concerned, it is according to the learned counsel, the same can be postponed as the same is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the threshold, at this stage, where the trial court is yet to commence in the calendar case.

8. The said issue can only be decided when the evidence of the witnesses is recorded and, therefore, just merely basing on the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the said issue cannot be resolved by giving a final say at this stage. Therefore, the submission is postponed leaving it open to the trial Court.

9. Concerning the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners, and the petitioners have been living separately but not in the matrimonial home of the de facto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly relying on the statements of one L.W.6 - Parella Sreedevi and L.W.7 – Parella Padma to the effect that the petitioners herein are now residing in Maddipadu village separately and, therefore, there would not be any occasion either to abet the commissi