ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 407(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 19 of 2004 of P.S. Yerraguntla, Cuddapah District. They pray this Court to transfer the case file in Crime No. 19 of 2004 of P.S. Yerraguntla, within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, Cuddapah District, to the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate and Mahila Court, Hyderabad.
2. The fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. The first petitioner married Syed Rasheeda Begum, daughter of Mahboob Ali, on 27.2.2002. She (not made party to this petition) is a resident of Yerraguntla town of Kamalapuram Mandal, Cuddapah District and the marriage was performed at the said place. After marriage, Rasheeda Begum came to matrimonial home at Chilkalguda, Secunderabad and started living with the petitioners herein. According to the petitioners, the wife of the first petitioner stayed only for one month at Secunderabad and shifted to her native place in November, 2002, as she became sick and was not able to adjust at the matrimonial home. One year four months after going away from Secunderabad, she lodged a complaint on 2.3.2004 with P.S. Yerraguntla, who registered Crime No. 19 of 2004, under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners assert that the marriage was strictly in accordance with Muslim Law, that no dowry was taken and that the entire money was spent by the first petitioner and that there was no harassment of the complainant by the petitioners.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that even according to the FIR, the place of offence is Door No. 11.1.776/12, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad and, therefore, police, Yerraguntla have no jurisdiction to register the crime. Further, they contend that the complainant stayed with the accused only for one month and, therefore, the commission of offence under Section 498A of IPC does not arise. There was long delay in filing the FIR and, therefore, the complaint is mala fide. The petitioners also raised various other contentions, which are not relevant for the purpose of this petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Aijaz Ahmed, vehemently contends that going by the FIR, when the offence is committed at Chilkalguda, the police of Yerraguntla, or the Criminal Court at Kamalapuram, have no territorial jurisdiction and, therefore, the proceedings are void. Opposing the petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the harassment meted out to the spouse by the husband and husband’s family is a continuous offence and criminal action against the accused can be initiated by the wife at the place of her choice.
5. Chapter XX of IPC deals with offences relating to marriage. Section 498A of IPC was introduced by subsequent amendment by enacting the said provision in Chapter XXA under the title “of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband”. The ingredients of the offence created by Section 498A of IPC are as under:
(i) Subjecting a married woman to cruelty by husband or relative of husband; by–
(a) any wilful conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, is cruelty; and/or
(b) making any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and thereby harassing the woman with a view to coercing her or any person relating to her for any property.
The demand for money or dowry subsequent to the marriage which resulted in harassment of the woman, is an offence under Section 498A of IPC. The harassment for dowry need not be by the husband or that with the connivance of the husband. Even a relative of the husband of the woman can be guilty of causing cruelty. In a case under Section 498 A of IPC, the woman may complain harassment for dowry either at the place of the husband (matrimonial home), or at the place of the parents-in-law, or at any other place where a relative or relatives reside. The important element is harassment of a woman for additional dowry. It would be wrong to presume that the husband or relatives of the husband or husband’s parents always live at another place or harassment is meted out at the house of parents of the woman. The woman may feel harassed if dowry is demanded at any place. If a woman leaves the matrimonial home being not able to bear the harassment for dowry or leaves the place where she and her husband last resided and files a complaint at the place of her parents or at the place where the woman intends to live, the police are bound to register the crime under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. as it is a cognizable offence. (See Stale of A.P. v. Kooneti Ramula ).
6. There cannot be any objection if police at Yerraguntla register a crime when the woman lodges a complaint, especially when such woman resided there before her marriage and the marriage was performed there. Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. contains provisions dealing the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. There are seven provisions in the said chapter. Section 177, which is a general provision, lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. There can always be situations and situations where other Magistrates can as well as enquire into and try the offence.
Sections 178 and 179 of Cr.P.C. and other provisions are by way of illustrations with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to enquire and conduct trial. Sections 178 and 179 read as under:
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 a 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 wnquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
179. Offence triable, where act is done or consequence ensues–When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
Section 179 of Cr.P.C. is to the effect that if the offence is committed in one place and the consequence of such offence has ensued in another place, the Court within whose jurisdiction such a thing was done or the Court where the consequence has ensued have jurisdiction. For instance, in the case of food adulteration or adulteration of drugs and fertilizers, it is not only the place where the food or other items are manufactured but also the place where the consequence ensued where the criminal trial can be conducted. Under Section 178(d) of Cr.P.C. where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it can be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
7. The three provisions, namely Sections 177 to 179 of Cr.P.C. indicate that in the case of offence under Section 498A of IPC, the case can be filed by the aggrieved wife/woman at a place where the demand was made for dowry or property thereby causing cruelty and also at a place where the woman was forced to live, that is to say the consequence that ensued as a result of cruelty. To give an illustration, after marriage if the wife is subjected to the cruelty by the husband or by his relatives at one place and due to such harassment the wife is forced to go either to her parent’s place or a friend’s place, there is nothing in law which prohibits the wife to initiate criminal action at a place where she is forced to live as a consequence of being subjected to cruelty.
8. The principle explained above can be justified for reasons more than one. Law has justifiably taken many special measures to protect the woman for obvious reasons. The law has given certain special individual rights as well as group rights to woman and also provided for redressal of grievance in the case of violation of rights of woman. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. confers a right on every married woman to claim maintenance from her husband if he neglects or refused to maintain his wife where the action has to be initiated. Section 126(1) of Cr.P.C. lays down as under:
126. Procedure — (1) Proceedings under Section 125 may he taken against any person in any district —
(a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife resides, or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
The choice of initiating proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is given to the woman. She can file a maintenance case at a place where her husband is staying. where she resides or where the husband and wife last resided as the case may be. To the similar effect is Section 182(2) of Cr.P.C. The said provision lays down that any offence punishable under Section 494. Bigamy or Section 195 of IPC may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by first marriage. All these provisions indicate that woman who is subjected to cruelty can file a complaint or lodge an F.I.R., at a place where the husband resides or the relative resides, at a place where she resides or at a place where both of them last resided. Needless to mention that as an offence is in relation to marriage, such a complaint can be enquired into and tried by a Court at a place where marriage was performed as well. The choice of choosing the Court is certainly with the married woman and the husband or relatives, who are accused of committing an offence under Section 498 A of IPC cannot choose the Forum of their choice. Be it noted that under Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation or divorce can be filed at a place where the marriage was solemnized or at a place where the opposite party resides or at a place where both the parties last resided.
9. In this case, as per the complaint given by Syed Rasheeda Begum, wife of first petitioner, made an allegation that when the demand made by the petitioners were not fully met, her husband took her to Yerraguntla and left her there. Therefore, this Court holds that the police at Yerraguntla and the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram (which has territorial jurisdiction over Yerraguntla) have jurisdiction to conduct inquiry and trial.
10. In the result, for the above reasons, the Transfer Criminal Miscellaneous Petition cannot be accepted and is accordingly dismissed. The police at Yerraguntla is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible (if not already completed) and file a final report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram.