Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P. Nagamani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 July, 2024
APHC010174612024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3364]
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 316 AND 318 OF 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.316 of 2024
Between:
1. DASARI NAGA SESHULU, S/O. VENKATA RAMUDU, AGE 38 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGE LABOUR, RESIDENTS OF D.NO. 34-105, A16,
KUMMARI STREET, NEAR 1 TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL,
A.P.
2. DASARI VEERAMMA, W/O. VENKATA RAMUDU, AGE 57 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF D.NO. 34-105, A16, KUMMARI STREET, NEAR 1
TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL, A.P.
...APELLANT(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, SC AND ST CELL ZONE II, VISHAKAPATNAM, HIGH
COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI.
...RESPODENT
2
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 of 2024
Between:
1. P. NAGAMANI, W/O. RAGHU RAM CHANDRUDU, AGE 40
YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO. 34-105, A16, KUMMARI
STREET, NEAR 1 TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL, A.P.
...APELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, THROUGH THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, SC AND ST CELL ZONE II, VISHAKAPATNAM, HIGH
COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI.
...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Challenge in the Criminal Appeal No.316 of 2024 is to the order in
Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2023 in Sessions Case No.134 of 2018, dated 21.08.2023,
whereunder the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under
SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam
("learned Special Judge" for short) dealing with a petition filed by the present
appellants with a prayer to discharge them under Section 227 Cr.P.C.,
dismissed the same.
2. Challenge in the Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2024 is to the order in
Crl.M.P.No.128 of 2020 in Sessions Case No.134 of 2018, dated 21.08.2023,
whereunder the learned Special Judge, dealing with a petition filed by the
present appellant with a prayer to discharge her under Section 227 Cr.P.C.,
dismissed the same.
3. As both the Appeals arose against the common order in the above
referred Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, both the Appeals can be disposed
of by way of this common judgment.
4. The present appellants were charge sheeted by the police alleging the
offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST(POA) Act,
1989, on the allegations of dowry harassment coupled with the caste abuse of
defacto-complainant by all the accused.
5. Originally, there were four accused. The 1st appellant/accused No.1 is
the husband of the victim and the 2nd appellant/accused No.2 is the mother in
law of the victim in Crl.A.No.316 of 2024. The appellant/accused No.4 in
Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2024 is the sister in law of the victim. The Father in
law of the victim passed away during pendency of the case.
6. The appellants in both the Criminal Appeals i.e., Crl.A.Nos.316 and 318
of 2024 filed Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.128 of 2020 respectively,
with a prayer to discharge them mainly on the ground that marriage of the 1st
appellant in Crl.A.No.316 of 2024 took place at Visakhapatnam and the
alleged dowry harassment that took place at Kurnool. Their contention is that
firstly, the learned Special Judge, Visakhapatnam had no territorial jurisdiction
to enquire into the case. Another ground is that there is no whisper about the
role of the appellant/accused No.4 in Crl.A.No.318 of 2024 in the police report
or in the statements of the witnesses.
7. The above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were opposed by the
Public Prosecutor and the learned Special Judge by virtue of a common order
dated 21.08.2023, dismissed those petitions.
8. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the unsuccessful appellants/ accused
filed these both Criminal Appeals i.e., Crl.A.Nos.316 and 318 of 2024.
9. Now in deciding these Appeals, the simple question that falls for
consideration is that as to whether the present appellants are liable to be
discharged of the allegations levelled against them?
Point:
10. Sri G.Naga Satyanaryana, learned counsel for the appellants, would
contend that the alleged offences regarding dowry harassment and the caste
abuse took place at Kurnool but the police filed charge sheet at
Visakhapatnam and the Court at Visakhapatnam had no territorial jurisdiction,
as such, the accused are liable to be discharged. He would further contend
that insofar as appellant in Crl.A.No.318 of 2024 is concerned, there was
nothing against her in the charge sheet or in the statements of the witnesses,
as such, the Court ought to have allowed the prayer to discharge her.
11. As seen from the copy of charge sheet, which was laid under Section
498-A IPC, under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section
3(1)(x) of SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989, L.W.1 was the defacto-complainant.
There was no dispute about the performance of the marriage of victim with the
1st appellant in Crl.A.No.316 of 2024 at Visakhapatnam. Later, she was said to
have joined at matrimonial home at Kurnool. It was alleged that the
harassment was started in Kurnool. The charge sheet contents reveal that the
alleged harassment was continued even at her parents' house. There is no
doubt that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing one.
Considering the same, the learned Special Judge did not find favour with the
case of the complainants.
12. Apart from this, the outcome of the investigation is such that police
ascertained the role of the appellant/accused No.4 in the entire episode. The
statements of the witnesses recorded by the police revealed the role of the
accused No.4 also.
13. As evident from the thrust of the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants that as the Court had no territorial jurisdiction, accused are liable to
be discharged. In support of his contention he would rely upon a decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhura Ram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and
another1 . It is a case where the Hon'ble Apex Court dealing with the offences
under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, looked into the territorial aspect and
directed returning of the complaint so as to present the same before the
appropriate Court. It is not a case relating to discharge on the ground that the
Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Needless to point out here that, the
petitioners did not pray for appropriate relief before the learned Special Judge
on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction.
14. Apart from this, the allegations in the charge sheet goes to reveal
literally that the offence alleged against the present appellants was a
continuing one. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the accused cannot be discharged for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Even otherwise, the averments in the charge sheet whisper that the offences
alleged were continuing.
15. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the
(2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 103
learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC & ST(POA)
Act-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.M.P.Nos.246 of
2023 and 128 of 2020, in Sessions Case No.134 of 2018, dated 21.08.2023,
as such, the Appeals are devoid of merits.
16. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.04.07.2024
MH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Crl.A.Nos.316 & 318 of 2024
Date: 04.07.2024
MH
