BHANU PRASAD VARIGANJI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.599 of 2015 on the file of the XIIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the marriage of the petitioner with the 3rd respondent was performed on 20.11.2013 at Sama Papireddy Function Hall, Balapur, Hyderabad, and the same was also registered on 22.11.2013. However, the said marriage was not consummated as the 3rd respondent resisted for the same. There was no giving or taking of dowry and, on the other hand, the petitioner had given gold ornaments worth Rs.2.5 lakhs to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is a Software employee working in Florida, U.S.A. As the petitioner has no time to stay in India, he left on 24.11.2013 and also informed the 3rd respondent that he will make travel arrangements for her to join with him. Thus, it is clear that after the marriage, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent did not live together. Thereafter, the petitioner has completed VISA process and made arrangements for the arrival of the 3rd respondent to join with him in U.S.A., and the 3rd respondent joined the petitioner on 21.01.2014. Though the 3rd respondent joined the petitioner, but her behaviour and actions are abusive in nature, which were never expected by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent subjected the petitioner to torture and never allowed him to live with her at any point of time and day-byday her attitude became unbearable and even then the petitioner bear the agony up to August, 2014. The 3rd respondent once again seriously abused in filthy language by shouting at him and breaking the things in the flat. In those circumstances, the petitioner called the U.S. Police and in their presence he left the house duly providing maintenance for her and started staying in the Hotel at California by the time he was transferred to that place. In view of the above situation, the petitioner approached the local Attorney and got filed a case for legal separation on 15.08.2014 vide Case No.614FL 013077 and on that basis, summons were issued to the 3rd respondent, who was still residing in the petitioner's house, while the petitioner was in a hotel. In response to the said notice, the 3rd respondent issued an e-mail to the petitioner's Attorney expressing her intention to protest the case filed by the petitioner and also seeking for legal expenses from him. Though, as per the U.S.A. Laws, there is no necessity for the petitioner to make any payment towards her legal expenses, the petitioner obliged to make payment by way of a cheque for 2000 dollars and handed over the said cheque to his Attorney. The 3rd respondent on coming to know the said fact through the petitioner's Attorney, approached the Attorney and collected the cheque from him on 25.08.2014. Apart from the said amount, 500 dollars were already paid by the petitioner along with the summons. It is also stated that though the 3rd respondent received legal expenses from the petitioner, she did not participate in the proceedings, but asked for settlement by demanding Indian Currency of Rs.20.00 lakhs, which is equivalent to 30,000 dollars. The petitioner's Attorney in turn responded by saying that as per California Law, she cannot make such demand. But, she did not stand for the settlement and filed a case against the petitioner under Domestic Violence Act of California. When the petitioner met the police concerned, they informed that the investigation is in progress and it will be subject to the evidence provided by the 3rd respondent. Since the 3rd respondent has not produced any evidence before the Police concerned, they have not assigned any Case Number to the 3rd respondent complaint and it appears that there is no progress in the said case till now. The 3rd respondent instead of participating in legal separation case or cooperating with the U.S. Police in the case filed by her, suddenly left for India on 29.08.2014. Therefore, it makes it clear that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent never lived together either in India or U.S.A. and even pursued the case filed by her. But strangely, after landing in India, the 3rd respondent got issued a Legal Notice, dated 06.11.2014 through her Counsel making all false allegations. The petitioner's Attorney in the U.S.A. had given detailed response bringing to his notice all the events that had taken place including settlement issues on 01.12.2014. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and his family members vide Cr.No.384 of 2014. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner only and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.599 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) It is further stated in the affidavit that a fair look at the Charge Sheet and the facts narrated therein would disclose that all born on the soil of the U.S.A. and none of the events are traceable in India. That apart, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent lived in India not more than three days to attract the territorial jurisdiction. The offences alleged under Sections 498-A, 406 of I.P.C. or Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be invoked against the petitioner as the basic requirements to satisfy the offences or factual matrix are not satisfied, as all the facts are not traceable in India. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent, in spite of service of summons for legal separation and receiving of legal expenses from the petitioner, left the said proceedings and deliberately filed the present case only to harass the petitioner. Admittedly, even as per the complaint, she disclosed that legal separation case was already filed by the petitioner against her and expressed her intention to participate in the said proceedings by seeking legal expenses and having received the same, she also proposed settlement by demanding huge amount, which was promptly clarified that she is not entitled for the same as per the California Law.