A V Ravindra Babu, J
1. 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 another (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 103 . 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 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.
