DUBBUDU RAMAKANTH REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1873 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy. Accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant, i.e., respondent No.2 herein, while accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1. These petitions are filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1873 of 2022.

(2.) Brief facts as stated in the complaint leading to the filing of the present quash petitions are that the de facto complainant and accused No.1 were both working in USA on employment Visa. On 3/10/2014, in the presence of the parents of both the parties, their marriage was performed at New Jersey, USA as per Hindu customs. The authority, officer of the Bergan County, New Jersey has attended the marriage and issued a marriage certificate on 7/10/2014 and the marriage was consummated at USA. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a son on 8/6/2016. Subsequently, the parents of accused No.1, i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, visited accused No.1 and the de facto complainant at USA and stayed there for 5 months and they returned to India thereafter. It is submitted that the de facto complainant came to India in February, 2020 along with her brother and accused No.1 to celebrate the retirement function of her mother Smt. A.Bharathi. On the date of her return from India, there was an altercation between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 and thereafter, the couple returned to USA on 21/3/2020. Alleging that (i) accused Nos.1 to 3 have demanded cash, gold and other articles towards dowry at the time of the marriage; and that (ii) accused No.1 was consuming alcohol heavily and used to pick up quarrels and beat her on 16/2/2016; and that (iii) during their stay at USA, accused Nos.2 and 3 have demanded for additional dowry; and that (iv) the complainant has given cash to accused No.1, who promised to purchase some properties in the name of the complainant but the same were purchased in the name of the accused, the father of the de facto complainant, as a GPA holder of the complainant, lodged a police complaint in India on 15/12/2021 and the same was registered as Crime No.494 of 2021 on the file of Women Police Station, Rachakonda District under Ss. 498A, 417, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Ss. 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The police took up investigation and have filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.1873 of 2022 against accused Nos.1 to 3.

(3.) Accused Nos.1 to 3 have now filed the present quash petitions stating that the complaint by the de facto complainant could not have been filed through her GPA holder, but the police, without verifying the same and in a mechanical manner, entertained the said complaint and registered the case and have even filed the charge sheet thereafter, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. It is submitted that from the incident of marriage to the alleged incidents of consuming alcohol and beating the de facto complainant and alleged demands of additional dowry have all allegedly taken place in USA and therefore, no incidents have taken place in India, on the basis of which the complaint lodged at Hyderabad can be entertained against the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that though, in the charge sheet it was referred that on 21/3/2020, the accused abused respondent No.2 at Hyderabad, at no point of time has the respondent No.2 submitted any complaint to the police or to the elders with regard to the alleged incident. It is submitted that it is after 21 months of the said incident that respondent No.2 has filed the present complaint at Hyderabad and therefore, there is abnormal delay in submitting the report to the police which itself shows falsity of the complaint. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint with bald and baseless allegations without any reference to any specific overt acts and for this reason also, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that when the allegations against the petitioners do not constitute the offences as alleged against the petitioners, continuation of the proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that since January, 2021 respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were living separately and therefore, the question of accused No.1, abusing her does not arise and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners herein on the strength of such baseless allegations are liable to be quashed. It is submitted that for the de facto complainant, this is the third marriage and for accused No.1, it is the second marriage and the earlier marriage of the de facto complainant had also ended in a complaint filed by her against the husband alleging the offences under Ss. 406, 420 and 498A of IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the said marriage was dissolved in USA through Court decree and therefore, it is clear that the de facto complainant is a habitual litigant and is in the habit of filing false cases against her husband and in-laws. Even with regard to the alleged sole incident in India, it was only with regard to the accusation of the extra marital affair of accused No.1 and was not in any way related to the alleged harassment for additional dowry and therefore, it does not constitute the offence as alleged. It is further submitted that accused No.1 has filed a divorce case against the de facto complainant in USA and as a counter blast case, respondent No.2 has filed the present case in India. It is submitted that under Sec. 188 of Cr.P.C., where an offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside India, the trial should not be proceeded with without the previous sanction of the Central Government. It is submitted that in this case, no such sanction has been obtained by the police and hence the case proceedings have to be quashed.