Telangana High Court

Ghadiam Harshavardhan Reddy And 2 ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 February, 2024

       HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                   AT HYDERABAD

                              *****
              Criminal Petition No.5667 OF 2021

Between:

Ghadiam Harshavardhan Reddy and others              ... Petitioners

                                    And

The State of Telangana
rep. by Public Prosecutor and
another                                   ..Respondents/Complainant

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :02.02.2024

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

   1 Whether Reporters of Local
     newspapers may be allowed to see the                  Yes/No
     Judgments?

   2 Whether the copies of judgment may
     be marked to Law Reporters/Journals                   Yes/No

   3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
     Wish to see their fair copy of the                    Yes/No
     Judgment?


                                                  __________________
                                                    K.SURENDER, J
                                           2




               * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                               + CRL.P. No.5667 of 2021

% Dated 02.02.2024

# Ghadiam Harshavardhan Reddy and others                  ... Petitioners

                                         And

$ The State of Telangana
rep. by Public Prosecutor                        Respondents/Complainant


! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.Anirudh Reddy

^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor for R1
                       Sri K.Nandini @ A.Nandini Reddy for R2

>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
    (2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 734
2
    2023 SCC OnLine SC 950
3
    MANU/TL/1033/2021
                                    3


             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5667 of 2021

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.8986 of 2021 on

the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the

petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the case according to the defacto

complainant/2nd respondent are that, her marriage with A1

was performed on 08.02.2015. The defacto complainant and

A1 were acquainted with each other prior to marriage. One

week after marriage, both A1 and the defacto complainant left

to USA, where they were working. At the time of marriage, the

father of the defacto complainant spent Rs.25.00 lakhs and

also presented 700 grams of gold in the form of ornaments.

Expensive gifts were given to the family members. A demand

was made by petitioners to transfer house plot at Kadapa

worth Rs.90.00 lakhs in the name of 1st petitioner. During the

trip to Europe in the month of May, 2017, A1 behaved rudely

with her. Both were earning and A1 exploited her financially

and she did not have freedom of spending her own money. A1

bought two cars for himself and did not allow her to purchase

jewellery or clothes of her choice. The conduct of A1 was

getting abnormal. However, the parents of A1 supported him

and did not ask A1 to mend his ways. Son was born on

15.12.2019. During November, 2016, the defacto complainant

returned to India and she was humiliated by the petitioners.

During her delivery also, she developed issues and also after

delivery. However, petitioners did not take car of her. On

24.06.2020, A1 deserted her and started living in separate

residence, having filed for divorce in the USA.

3. Thereafter, there were differences regarding child

custody. Ultimately, she was compelled to leave USA and came

to India on 22.11.2020. Narrating the harassment, a

complaint was filed with the police, which was investigated

and charge sheet filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that one week after the marriage, A1 and defacto

complainant left to USA and staying together in the US. None

of the incidents have taken place in India and all the

allegations leveled are in the US. For the said reason of there

being no sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C, proceedings

cannot be permitted to continue. Learned counsel further

argued that divorce application was filed by A1 on 19.05.2020

and as a counter blast to the said divorce application, criminal

complaint was filed on 23.11.2020 with false allegations. In

fact, both of them have approached the Courts in the US

regarding child custody. The parties have approached the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 16.03.2022, there

was a consensus in between A1 and the defacto complainant

regarding child custody and all the issues have been settled.

Both A1 and the defacto complainant are staying in US and

proceedings before the criminal Court are nothing but abuse

of the process of the Court in the present circumstances.

5. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and

others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1, wherein it is

held as follows:

"11. In frivolous or vexations proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the over all circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation."

6. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Mahmood

Ali and others v. State of U.P and others 2 wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a complaint is sought

to be quashed, it is permissible for the High Court to look into

the material available and assess whether any offence is made

and also consider the frivolous and vexatious prosecution and

decide the case. He also relied on the judgment of Division

(2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 734

2023 SCC OnLine SC 950

Bench of this Court in the case of Gadiam Harshavardhan

Reddy v. State of Telangana and others 3.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent would submit that though A1 and defacto

complainant are living in the US, the 2nd respondent can

always come down to India to prosecute the case. Though

allegations are made that A1 was harassing in the US, there

are allegations leveled by the defacto complainant against the

petitioners in India also, for which reason, the bar under

Section 188 of Cr.P.C is not applicable. When the allegations

make out an offence, the trial Court has to decide regarding

the allegations leveled by the defacto complainant during trial.

Since several instances of harassment are narrated by the

defacto complainant, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

8. Admittedly, both A1 and also the defacto complainant are

now living in US. One week after the marriage, both left to US

and were working in US. Couple of instances when she was

humiliated in India is narrated in the complaint. Admittedly,

MANU/TL/1033/2021

A1 filed divorce application in the US on 11.05.2020. The

defacto complainant subjected herself to the jurisdiction in the

US and filed an application on 31.07.2020 seeking temporary

relief from the restraint order against her. The American Court

had restrained both the parties from removing the minor child

from the jurisdiction of the US Court without permission of the

said Court. The defacto complainant filed an application for

modification of the said order. However, it was declined by the

Court. Thereafter, she came to India and filed present criminal

complaint against the husband and the parents. The defacto

complainant traveled to India in violation of the orders of the

Court in USA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court adjudicated on the

petition filed by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent in

which the parties agreed to the following terms, (1st

respondent refers to the husband/A1 and the petitioner refers

to the wife/2nd respondent herein):

"1.Respondent No.1 shall take steps for withdrawal/cancellation of arrest warrant and order of protection passed by the Courts in the United States of America (USA). On vacation or variation of the orders, respondent No.1 would furnish written proof of the same to the petitioner.

2. Respondent No.1 has agreed to modification of the sole custody order to equal share in parenting time order.

3. There is some controversy whether the shared parenting order dated 05.08.2020 is in operation. We have made no comments in this regard as this is an aspect to be examined by the Courts in the USA. The petitioner would, as advised, move an application for amendment/modification of the aforesaid order, as per the law. Term No.2 applies.

4. The petitioner can apply for H1B visa demonstrating the changes in circumstances and her willingness to take back the child, who is a USA citizen. The respondent No.1 would assist and help the petitioner in getting H1B visa by writing to USCIS and the concerned Department of the State.

5. Respondent No.1 has agreed to share the net proceeds from sale of the car and the house. The money from the retirement account of the petitioner would be transferred by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner's account on the order passed by the Courts in USA.

6. The respondent No.1 and the petitioner undertake that they will not start any new litigation in the USA or India. The respondent No.1 has also agreed to withdraw all matters filed by him, except to the extent necessary for compliance of the agreed terms.