THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1189 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.206 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise), Sangareddy, for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri CMR Velu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Dr.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Ms. Alapati Latha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1 was solemnized at Dwaraka Tirumala, Eluru. The parents of respondent No.2 are residents of Vijayawada as well as Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The accused have their permanent residence at Boduppal, Ranga Reddy District, and the couple resided at Kukatpally after marriage. According to respondent No.2, in her complaint, she stated that she had lived in Kollur only for a few days, which, by itself, cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Ramachandrapuram Police Station either to register the FIR or to investigate into the matter and file a charge sheet. Irrespective of other contentions raised, on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceedings.

04. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the offence committed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 is continuing offence. By referring to Sections 177 to 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code it is submitted that there is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, enquired or tried. While submitting that basing on sole point of jurisdiction the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed, she relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v.

State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and another, (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 728 wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.11 and 15 that:

“11. Chapter XIII of the Code provides for "Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials". It is to be stated that under the said Chapter there are various provisions which empower the Court for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or tried. This would be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188. For our purpose, it would be suffice to refer only to Sections 177 and 178 which are as under:-

"177, Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial. - (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."

15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that 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 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 police