JUDGMENT

K. Lakshman, J. - This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.400 of 2020 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Pet Basheerbad Police Station, Cyberabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the said Crime No.400 of 2020. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri J. Venudhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, learned Public Prosecutor for the State - respondent No.1 and Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri A. Vijayabhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 would submit that there is no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Pet Basheerbad Police Station, Cyberabad, Telangana State. The entire cause of action arose either in Tirupati or in Canada. He would further submit that the 1st petitioner - accused No.1 and the daughter of the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant married in United States of America and they have registered their marriage with the Registrar of Marriages. In proof of the same, the learned counsel has filed marriage certificate wherein, the date of marriage is mentioned as 08.07.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a love marriage and against the wishes of the parents of the spouses.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that both the 1st petitioner and the daughter of the de facto complainant left to America and also to Canada thereafter. Presently, both of them are staying at Canada itself. There is no allegation of demand of dowry, much less, additional dowry. The contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the 2nd petitioner - accused No.2 is the father of accused No.1. He is aged about 64 years. He is a retired Government servant. He is suffering from so many old-age ailments. The 3rd petitioner - accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1. She is aged about 57 years and suffering from old-age ailments. In the complaint, there is no specific allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. The learned counsel would further submit that the 2nd respondent, who lodged the present complaint, is not having any locus to lodge the same unless he is having personal knowledge of any of the events between his daughter and accused No.1. The de facto complainant implicated the petitioners herein in this false case due to matrimonial disputes between his daughter and accused No.1. The learned counsel would further submit that the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners is seven years and below seven years and the police, Pet Basheerbad Police Station, Cyberabad, without following the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., trying to apprehend the petitioners herein. In the said course of action, the police are calling petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are aged parents of accused No.1 and suffering from various old-age ailments.

5. With the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to quash the present crime.

6. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant, would submit that the de facto complainant, who is father of the wife of accused No.1, is having locus to lodge the complaint. In support of his contention, he relied on Section 198-A of Cr.P.C.

7. According to Section 198-A of Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code except upon a