IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that jurisdiction for criminal proceedings can extend beyond the locality of the offense if the offense is continuing or has consequences in another jurisdiction.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents herein in registering, investigating the FIR No.66/2013 culminated into the PRC No.90/2014 pending on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash same.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s marriage with the 4th respondent was solemnized on 23.5.2012 at CSI Church, Ananthapur. Later, due to disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed MC No.12 of 2013 on the file of Senior civil Judge, Yadgiri for restitution of conjugal rights. As a counter blast to the said case, the 4th respondent lodged a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner by concocting a false story before the 2nd respondent who in turn endorsed the same to the 3rd respondent to take action as per law vide FIR No.66 of 2013 and after competition of investigation the respondent police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as PRC No.90/2014 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram. It is main grievance of the petitioner that the respondents NO.2 and 3 without looking at the allegations in the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent, registered FIR and took up the investigation even though they haveno jurisdiction to investigate into the alleged offence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the PRC No.90/2014 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram arising out of crime in FIR No.66/2013 is liable to be quashed.

3. This Court vide order dated 25.08.2015 while issuing Rule Nisi, had granted interim direction as prayed for and the same is extended from time to time.

4. The respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that the allegation that the 4th respondent gave a report to police as a counter blast to the case filed by the petitioner in MC No.12 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yadgiri is not correct and that can be decided by the trial Court. Any how, as it is for the trial Court, to consider the defence of the petitioner in criminal case. The allegations mentioned in the affidavit that this respondent is having no jurisdiction in registering and investigating the case is not correct and the said allegation is only a created one. Further the investigation reveals that there is prima facie case against the accuse for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 307, 403 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused in PRC No.90/2014 on the file of AJFCM, Ananthapuramu.

5. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sai Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. On hearing, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent vide FIR No.66/2013 and the consequential investigation resulting in filing of charge sheet taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate, thereafter culminating into PRC No.90 of 2014 pending on the file of AJFCM, Ananthapuram are totally counter blast to the case filed by the petitioner herein vide MC No.12 of 2013 which is filed for restitution of conjugal rights against the 4th respondent. The act of 4th respondent clearly indicates in lodging the criminal complaint. On this ground alone the complaint is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the complaint and consequential investigation is liable to be quashed for the reason that the entire allegations contained in the complaint dated 17.08.2013 discloses alleged incidents happened in Yadagiri District and at Bangalore of Karnataka State. The complaint does not whisper about any incident on cause of action to invoke the criminal jurisdiction of Ananthapuram police. Respondents no.2 and 3 without verifyi