Dismissed

Mirza Irfan Ali Baig, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Feb 2011CRLP/4750/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a criminal petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Hyderabad lower court to try an offence under Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the marriage and gift of dowry occurred in Hyderabad, part of the cause of action for the dowry offences took place within its jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Mirza Irfan Ali Baig, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4750 of 2009

¶3

DATED: 11.02.2011

¶4

BETWEEEN:

¶5

1.Mirza Irfan Ali Baig & 4 others.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

1. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor & 2 others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4750 of 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioners 1 to 5/A1 to A5 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498-(A)/34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in CC.No.169 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The

¶14

only point urged by the petitioners’ counsel in this petition is that the lower Court at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case as no part of cause of action for the offences took place within the jurisdiction of the lower Court.

¶15

2. It is alleged that marriage of the 3^rd respondent/defacto complainant with A1 took place on 10.05.2007 at Bajrbar Function Hall, Etabar Chowk, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and that at the time of marriage, as per demand of A1 to A5, parents of the 3^rd respondent gave Rs.3,00,000/- in cash, extra cash of Rs.1,00,000/- furniture, 25 tulas of gold, pearl necklace worth of Rs.20,000/-, clothes worth of Rs.20,000/- to A1 and clothes of the complainant worth of Rs.50,000/-, one pair of citizen watches and also amount of Rs.50,000/- as goda-joda to A1 to A5 in the presence of witnesses. After marriage, the 3^rd respondent joined the accused at Parbhani, near Nanded, Maharashtra State. It is further alleged that A1 to A5 harassed the 3^rd respondent for additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and were creating problems to her and that on 21.06.2007, all the accused violently beat the 3^rd respondent and necked her out of the house demanding to return to the house with additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶16

3. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on

¶17

Y.Abraham Ajith Vs. Inspector of Police^[1] and Bhura Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan^[2] of the Supreme Court and contended that the proceedings in lower Court are liable to be quashed as the lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case for trial.

¶18

4. As pointed out earlier, marriage of the 3^rd respondent with A1 took place at Hyderabad. There is no dispute of the said fact. It is alleged that dowry and other presents were given by parents of the 3^rd respondent to A1 to A5 at the time of marriage. Therefore, even though the couple resided at Parbhani of Maharashtra State, where a part of cause of action for the offence under Section 498(A) took place, it cannot be denied that part of the cause of the action for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act took place within the jurisdiction of the lower Court at Hyderabad. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the lower Court totally lacked jurisdiction to try this case.

¶19

5. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶20

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶21

Dated: 11.02.2011 ysk

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4750 of 2009

¶24

DATED: 11.02.2011