Telangana High Court
Sudhir Ponnala vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7299 of 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar the cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Sections 498-A, 109, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder:
a) Petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of petitioner No.3-accused No.3, who is the husband of respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed a private complaint before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar alleging that one Sripathi Rajeshwara Rao brought a marriage alliance for respondent No.4, who is working in Infosys in Virginia USA and that respondent Nos.2 to 4, who were residing in New York are also looking for marriage alliances.2
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 - accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the house of respondent Nos.2 to 4 many a times and finalized the marriage and informed their son to get married. At the time of marriage accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.1 crore as dowry. Accused No.3 could not get leave, as such the marriage was decided to be performed in New York and accordingly the marriage between respondent No.4 and petitioner No.3 was performed on 31.07.2014.
b) After marriage petitioner No.3-accused No.3 started demanding the dowry but respondent No.4 refused to give that amount as she was contributing towards rent and household expenses. Petitioner No.3-accused No.3 started threatening respondent No.4 that he will not live with her and started having affairs with different ladies viz., accused No.4 and for most of the weekends accused No.3 used to live with those ladies. Accused No.3 filed no-fault divorce petition before New York Court vide Index No.050-888-15 and alleged that accused No.3 sought divorce from respondent No.4 on the ground of irretrievable broke down between them. When notice has come from the Court, respondent No.4 intended to commit suicide and telephoned to her parents, who consoled her and gave courage and support to her to withstand and fight for justice. 3 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 contacted petitioner Nos.1 to 3- accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused but petitioner Nos.1 and 2 supported petitioner No.3 and stated that whatever amount agreed shall be immediately be given so that divorce petition will be withdrawn or else petitioner No.3-accused No.3 would marriage another lady. Petitioner No.3- accused No.3 was giving offers of 20000 US dollars as compensation to the respondent No.4, who refused for the said offer for divorce.
c) Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar has forwarded the private complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Uppal Police Station, who in turn have registered the same as Crime No.773 of 2016 on 18.10.2016 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 109, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners have filed CRLP No.6575 of 2017 before this Court for quashing Crime No.773 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 02.08.2017 with a direction to the investigating officer to investigate but not to arrest the petitioners unless report of the committee on its constitution is received, however that does not prevent the securing for interrogation as part of investigation. The Police have completed entire investigation and filed charge 4 sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed the present criminal petition on the following grounds:
i) The allegations are utterly false and baseless as there is no reference to this allegation in the case vide Index No.050-
888-15 filed before the New York State Supreme Court at the Courthouse, Richmond County.
ii) Respondent No.3 having received 9000 US dollars towards full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioner No.3 cannot continue the criminal proceedings as she is estopped from doing so.
iii) The investigating officer has recorded the statements of the parents of the victim on 18.06.2016 and the statement of the alleged victim on 12.12.2016 i.e. after the pronouncement of the judgment in US Court on 20.10.2016. The investigating officer did not take into account the detailed representation dated 18.05.2017 given by the petitioners to the notice under Section 41 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 11.05.2017 given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Uppal Police 5 Station. The Investigating officer did not take into account the order dated 20.10.2016 delivered by the New York State Supreme Court. The investigating officer failed to see that no allegations of cruelty or demand or demand for dowry were made before the New York Court.
iv) The petitioners neither demanded Rs. 1 crore nor the said amount was given.
v) The petitioner No.1 never left India at any point of time as he does not have a passport and thus, he never lived even for one day with the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 in USA. The petitioner No.2 went to USA only few days and spent hardly three days with petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 in USA. Therefore, the allegations of harassment are utterly baseless and there was no harassment to the respondent No.3 much less harassment forcing her to contemplate suicide.
vi) The offences alleged are said to have taken place in USA. In respect of offences which are alleged to have taken place outside India, no action can be initiated without permission of the Central Government as per Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6
vii) The complaint filed by the respondents is only a ploy and device to harass the petitioners and extract money from them. The malafide intention of the respondents can be gathered by the fact that they have even included the name of Ms.Sindhura, who has married the petitioner No.3 on 26.12.2016 and is no way connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. Subsequently, the name of Ms.Sindhura was deleted in the charge sheet.
4. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
5. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
6. On going through the contents of charge sheet, admittedly the marriage between the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 was performed on 31.07.2014 in New York. According to the de-facto complainants one Sripathi Rajeshwara Rao has brought an alliance when he came to know that the petitioners 7 wee also looking up for a prospering bride. The petitioner No.3 and accused No.3 are software engineers working in USA. Their marriage was fixed and the petitioners have demanded Rs.1 crore as dowry. However, the parents of respondent No.4 have informed them that whatever earnings of respondent No.4 would be with the petitioners and she would pay the same subsequent to the marriage. It is submitted that after marriage was solemnized in USA, both of them started their matrimonial life and after some time when third petitioner has demanded to pay the money, the respondent No.4 stated to have refused to pay money to the third petitioner stating that she has been maintaining the house and spending money for other requirements. On such refusal by respondent No.4, the third petitioner stated to have started harassing respondent No.4 physically and mentally and also informed her that he would marry other lady, who is capable of giving divorce. In addition to that the third petitioner started developing intimacy with other ladies viz., initially with Deepa and subsequently third petitioner developed love affair with Sindhura and that he would marry her. As the dispute further developed, the third petitioner has filed no-fault divorce petition before New York Court vide Index No.050-888-15 and ultimately the same was 8 also granted. The respondent No.4 was also awarded 9000 US Dollars as compensation/permanent alimony.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others1, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines are:
"(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a 1 1992 AIR 604 9 just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
8. As per the ratio laid down in the above said authority, it is to be examined whether case on hand, falls in any one of the categories mentioned above.
9. Right from the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 until marriage was dissolved, all the incidents allegedly happened in USA. None of the allegations leveled against the petitioners admittedly occurred in India. In fact, it is not the case of the respondents that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have harassed respondent No.4 in India. The parents of accused No.1 were communicating with their son only through mobile. In Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
2
(2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 357 10 "24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.
25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. "they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore" and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother's sister and husband of mother's sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants.
Further, prior to filing of the application under Section 11 156(3) Cr.P.C. there was no complaint at any point of time by the girl or her father making allegation of demand of any dowry by any one of the applicants. When both Nayan Chopra and Vanshika started living separately since November, 2013, had there been any dowry demand or harassment the girl would have given complaint to Police or any other authority. Further, in the divorce proceedings at Michigan, U.S.A., parties have agreed for dividing their properties including gifts given at marriage but no complaint was made in those proceedings regarding harassment by her husband or his family members. The judgment of the divorce contains following clauses regarding "Property Settlement and Provision in Lieu of Dower":
............
............
26. The above judgment in divorce proceedings indicates that Nayan Chopra and Vanshika have settled all issues between them including division of properties at the time when divorce proceedings were in progress at Michigan and both the parties were not in India, the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been filed making allegation under Section 498A of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act only to harass and put pressure on the applicants."
10. Therefore, considering all the facts narrated by the respondents, it is clear that entire acts of accused in respect of 12 alleged offence took place only in USA. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as under:
"188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government."
11. As per the above said proviso, since the offence alleged against the petitioners took place in USA, the procedure contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed. In the case on hand, the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Central Government has not granted any permission for prosecution of the petitioners. In Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 through Principal Secretary and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: 3
(2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527 13 "Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required."
12. It is also not clear as to whether section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed if the offence is committed by Indian citizens outside India. It is not clear as to whether the third petitioner is citizen of India or USA. In any case, if the Indian citizen has committed offence in USA, section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed and in case if the third petitioner is citizen of USA and the offence is committed by him is in USA, he cannot be found guilty even if permission is given under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Respondent No.4 having received 9000 US dollars towards full and final settlement of all her claims 14 against the petitioner No.3 cannot continue the criminal proceedings as she is estopped from doing so and in support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon an authority in Mohd.Shamim and others v. Nahind Begum (SMT) and another4, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"This Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. [2004 (8) Supreme 525], in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceeding against the husband, stating :
"Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue"
In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment be set aside. The First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent."
14. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in view of the principle laid down in the above citations, viewing 4 (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 302 15 from any angle either on facts or on law, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued in C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 05.09.2022 AS