Telangana High Court
Leon Christopher Emanuel vs The State Of Telangana on 25 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.810 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.8007 of 2022 on the file of the learned XV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 417, 506 and
406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'I.P.C.') and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before the Police, WPS Police Station,
North Zone, Begumpet, Secunderabad, stating that her
marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 30.09.2011.
After the marriage, she joined with petitioner No.1 and they
lived happily for some time. Prior to the marriage, she used to
work in Swiss International Airlines, Dubai, and petitioner
No.1 is working as a Director in E-Man Group of Companies.
After the marriage, she left the job and used to assist
SKS,J
petitioner No.1 in business affairs along with matrimonial
duties. Her in-laws and their younger son were also working
in the same company and they all are residing together under
one roof. After some time, the petitioners used to harass
respondent No.2 mentally and physically. When respondent
No.2 joined with petitioner No.1, she was forced to fulfill his
fetish for unnatural sex and she bore all such acrimonious
acts of petitioner No.1, which were supported by her in laws.
3. Later, respondent No.2 came to know that petitioner
No.1 is having illicit relationship with another woman. In
October 2015, respondent No.2 was forcefully sent to India
and warned her not to return to marital home. Thereafter,
with a mala fide intention, petitioner No.1 filed a petition, vide
F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2016, before the Family Court,
Secunderabad, for dissolution of marriage. While the
marriage of respondent No.2 is still in existence, petitioner
No.1 married German women by name Natasha Hassel Berg
and approached the Director General of Immigration, Lusaka
for including her name in his passport. It is further stated
that the petitioner Nos2 to 4 were instigating and supporting
the unlawful acts of petitioner No.1.
SKS,J
4. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
case in Crime No.108 of 2021 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 494, 417, 506 and 406 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Act. After
completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet and
the same was numbered as C.C.No.8007 of 2022 on the file of
the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad.
5. Heard Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as
Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf respondent No.1-State. Though notice was served
upon respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even
if the entire complaint is taken in toto, the offences as alleged
in the complaint do not constitute. He further submitted that
the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2
was performed in Mumbai on 30.09.2011. Thereafter, they
visited Hyderabad and respondent No.2 left to Dubai, where
she was working and petitioner No.1 went to Africa, where he
was working. After 15 months of the marriage, respondent
SKS,J
No.2 joined with petitioner No.1 at Africa to lead their marital
life.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that a bare perusal of the complaint reveals that respondent
No.2 with an intention to harass the petitioners, filed the
present complaint after five years of initiation of divorce
proceedings and the ex-parte order is in favour of petitioner
No.1. He further submitted that after completion of statutory
period petitioner No.1 married the German women i.e.,
Natasha Hassel Berg as there was no communication
pertaining to set aside the ex-parte order. He further
submitted that F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2016 was dismissed on
12.07.2022.
8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Madhusudhan Rao,
wherein it is held as under:
"Time and again, the object and importance of
prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been
highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information
Report, more often than notresults in embellishment and
exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A
delayed report not only get bereft of the advantage of
SKS,J
spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured
version, exaggerated account of the incident or a
concocted story as a result of deliberations and
consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on
its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in
lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon
the judgment of the High Court of Madras in J. Srinivasan
vs. The State, wherein it is held as under:
"There is no reason as to why there was such a
long delay of two years in giving the complaint. The
respondent police surprisingly had registered the FIR on
the same day on which the complaint was given even
without making a preliminary enquiry as required by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC
353.
A preliminary enquiry ought to have been
conducted for two reasons. The first reason is that there
was an enormous delay in giving the complaint against
the accused persons and the second reason is that the
issue involves a matrimonial dispute wherein the
preliminary enquiry has to be conducted before an FIR is
registered."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended
that as on the date of marriage, neither there is any
communication nor any notice was served upon petitioner
No.1 with regard to the set aside petition filed in
SKS,J
F.C.O.P.No.93 of 2016. He further submitted that after
obtaining the ex-parte order and after completion of the
statutory period only, petitioner No.1 performed another
marriage. Therefore, the offence under Section 494 of IPC does
not attract as alleged in the complaint.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings under the
Domestic Violence Act in Mumbai at Kurla, vide
C.C.No.11/DV/2018 and further she filed miscellaneous
application i.e., Ex.17 for return of Stridhan and the same
was rejected. Later, respondent No.2 preferred appeal vide
Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2023 and the same was dismissed
and disposed of on 13.09.2023. Therefore, the offence under
Section 406 of IPC also does not attract as alleged in the
complaint.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that
the entire allegations made against the petitioners are vague
and the same pertains to Botswana, Africa, and that there was
no single allegation with regard to harassment of respondent
No.2 in India. He further submitted that no complaint was
lodged before the concerned authorities at Botswana, Africa
SKS,J
about the harassment by the petitioners. After several years,
with an intention to harass the petitioners, without there
being any jurisdiction, lodged the complaint against them.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that even if the allegations are taken in toto, the Police cannot
prosecute the petitioners without following the procedure
contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. In the present
case, the charge sheet is filed without following the due
process as contemplated under Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
Though there are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and various High Courts, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Bhanu
Prasad Variganji vs. The State of Telangana, wherein it is
observed as under:
'The petitioner and the 3rd respondent lived in India
only for three days and the allegations contained in the
complaint and charge sheet are regarding the
occurrences in the United State of America. It is further
submitted that no sanction has been obtained under
Section 188 of Cr.P.C., which mandates that no Court
shall take congnizance except the previous sanction by
the Central Government when an offence is committed
outside the jurisdiction of India."
SKS,J
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that there were omnibus and general allegations and
Investigating Officer have failed to gather necessary prima
facie evidence. Further, there is no material evidence to
constitute the offences as alleged in the complaint and at any
point of time, there was no demand for dowry. Therefore, he
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners.
15. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and submitted that the allegations leveled against
the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial. The
jurisdiction issue and other issues as contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioners have to be decided by the
trial Court. Further, the allegation against petitioner No.1 is
that during the subsistence of marriage, petitioner No.1
married another woman. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be
decided and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
16. In the light of the rival submissions made by the parties
and having gone through the material available on record, it
appears that the allegations against petitioner No.1 is that, he
SKS,J
is having illicit relationship with another woman and married
the German woman. Further, petitioner No.1 used to harass
respondent No.2 and forced her to fulfill his fetish for
unnatural sex. The allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3
are that they supported petitioner No.1 and harassed
respondent No.2 and they intervened into the personal life of
respondent No.2 and asked her to act according to their
directions. Further, the articles which were presented at the
time of marriage of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are
with the custody of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner No.4 is
the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 and the younger
brother of petitioner No.1 and the allegation against him is
that he supported his brother i.e., petitioner No.1 and entered
into the personal and private life of respondent No.2.
17. On going through the above said allegations, admittedly,
petitioner No.1 married another woman in the year 2020, and
according to him, he obtained ex-parte divorce and after
expiry of the statutory period, he married another woman.
Learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that
petitioner No.1 has not received any notice for setting aside
the ex-parte order, as such, he is not liable for punishment
SKS,J
under Section 494 of IPC. It is further noted that there are no
other specific allegations against petitioner No.1 that he used
to harass respondent No.2 physically or mentally and
demanded additional dowry. Whether petitioner No.1 married
the German woman i.e., Natasha Hassel Berg before setting
aside the or after setting aside the ex-parte decree order has to
be decided after full-fledged trial only. Therefore, there are
serious allegations against petitioner No.1, as such, the
petition against him is liable to be dismissed.
18. Thereafter, the allegation against petitioner Nos.2 and 3
is that the dowry articles which were presented by the parents
of respondent No.2 at the time of her marriage are in their
custody, whereas respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings
under the Domestic Violence Act, at Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai at Kurla Court vide
C.C.No.11/DV/2018 for return of Stridhan and the same was
rejected on 12.05.2022. Later, aggrieved by the said rejection
order, she preferred appeal vide Crl.A.No.211 of 2023 and the
same was dismissed and disposed of on 13.09.2023.
Therefore, the allegations against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
SKS,J
vague and baseless, as such, the petition against them are
liable to be quashed.
19. Further, the allegation against petitioner No.4 is that he
entered into the private and personal life of respondent No.2
and he supported his brother i.e., petitioner No.1. Except
that, there is no other specific allegation against petitioner
No.4 to constitute the alleged offences. Therefore, the petition
against him is also liable to be quashed.
20. In view of the above discussion, the criminal petition is
allowed-in-part and the proceedings against petitioner Nos.2
to 4 in C.C.No.8007 of 2022 on the file of the learned XV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are
hereby quashed and the proceedings against petitioner No.1 is
dismissed and the prosecution is directed to proceed further.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 25.06.2024
SAI
