SURAPANENI SRIVALLI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A4 and A5 among five accused of C.C.No.698 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur, taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is outcome of the report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who was impleaded by the Court for her presence and represented initially by one advocate, Sri P.Subba Rao, vide docket order, dated 29.09.2015, which clearly speaks Sri P.Subba Rao, advocate wants to file vakalat and appeared on behalf of the de facto complainant, from instructions of mother of the de facto complainant present and permission is accorded by directing the Registry to name the de facto complainant as 2nd respondent and from verification of record, there is no vakalat filed and there is no representation much less presence of the de facto complainant or her mother, thereby, Court held service sufficient by recording no representation for the de facto complainant and ultimately heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor in reserving the matter for orders on 19.12.2018.

(2.) The crime registered on the report of the de facto complainant supra as Crime No.266 of 2014 of Pattabhipuram Police Station against eight accused including the petitioner viz.

(3.) In the quash petition, from the police final report, taken cognizance for the offences supra, the contentions are that the marriage of A1 with de facto complainant was performed on 13.02.2011 at Guntur; they blessed with no children; A1 is a Senior Software Engineer in 'Qual Com', Shandigo, California, U.S.A and the de facto complainant completed her B.Tech and while staying with her husband, pursued further studies on dependent visa and it is the averment that she was non-cooperative from the beginning and never provided conjugal happiness and never attended any domestic work and even he spent more than Rs.18 lakhs for her education and Rs.5.8 lakhs for purchase of gold ornaments by credit card and cash; during the stay of couple after marriage dated 13.02.2011 at Guntur left USA on 07.03.2011 till return back to India on 29.12.2013, where she did not even went to her parents-in-laws at Vijayawada but for her parents at Guntur from Hyderabad; thereafter both the spouse went back to USA on 26.01.2014 and came back again to India on 27.03.2014 and she did not go back to USA along with A1 on 29.03.2014; if at all she stayed at the in-laws house hardly few days, after the marriage dated 13.02.2011 till the couple left to USA on 07.03.2011 and never later and the accusation is no way sustainable against any of the accused and the complaint filed is with spite and ill-will by abusing the provisions of the Act and as a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by A1, after receipt of notice in matrimonial OP with an afterthought and with ill-will by engineering the allegations with no truth or basis. Along with quash petition, a copy of the divorce petition in O.P.No.233 of 2014, dated 27.03.2014 filed before the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, enclosed the Crime No.266 of 2014 referred supra in registration of the FIR from report of the de facto complainant was on 03.04.2014, which is 6 or 7 days after filing of the divorce OP by A1 against the de facto complainant in saying after marriage at Guntur, they stayed a short period at Vijayawada at his parents place and later, they left to USA, where she developed ill-will and was neglecting by harassing for further studies, even he was accommodating by joining and he suffered mental cruelty. He listened the recording conversations of her mother stating she was waiting for F1 Visa and thereafter, she will get rid of him by giving divorce with no mind to live etc. facts in saying her sole view to get a job, thereby, entitled to divorce on the ground of cruelty. There from also, it establishes that after the marriage, dated 13.02.2011, till the couple left to USA on 07.03.2011, they stayed together for a few days at her in-laws house that is of A2 and A3. From the charge sheet, the addresses shown of A1 in USA is at Sandiego of other State, A4 and A5, quash petitioners herein are at Atlanta, Georgia State, USA and A6 are at California State. It clearly shows A4 and A5 are entirely at different State, though residents of USA, to the place of residence of A1 and de facto complainant, another State at USA.