Telangana High Court
Sarikonda Sharath Chandra Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9881 of 2021
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
CC.No.3141 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate - cum - V Additional Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar,
Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Cr.No.414 of 2014 was registered on reference of a private
complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to Women Police Station,
Saroornagar.
3. In the complaint, it was alleged by the respondent No.2 that
she performed the marriage of her daughter, Preethi Kaluvakolanu
(victim), with petitioner No.1 on 05.04.2012. The respondent No.2
gave dowry, other customary gifts and spent Rs.20 lakhs for
performing marriage. The petitioners 2 and 3 played a trick and did
not allow the respondent No.2 to enquire about the job details of
the petitioner No.1. It was informed to the respondent No.2 that
the petitioner No.1 is well placed in USA. The petitioners - accused
wanted a girl with H1B Visa in USA to be married to the petitioner
No.1. The petitioners concealed that the petitioner No.1 had many
issues related to his job and Green Card in USA.
4. It is alleged that after marriage, the petitioner No.1 started
harassing the victim on every petty issue and it came to light that
the petitioner No.1 is unfit for marital life. The victim was forced to
fulfil sexual desires of the petitioner No.1, who attempted to lay
hands on her physically. During their matrimonial life in USA,
the petitioner No.1 humiliated the victim and alleged false
attributions of extra-marital life of victim with another man.
5. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was
taken on file as CC.No.3141 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - V Additional Junior Civil Judge,
L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. The victim was
examined as L.W.2.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of alliance,
L.W.2 (victim) informed the petitioner No.1 that she had H1B Visa
and it should be stamped in India and it takes about 15 days time,
so that she can join the petitioner No.1 in USA. After the marriage
was solemnized on 05.04.2012 at Yadagirigutta and registered with
the concerned Sub-Registrar Office on 07.04.2012, on the same
day in the midnight the petitioner No.1 left USA leaving L.W.2. It is
stated that L.W.2 did not accompany the petitioner No.1due to Visa
stamping reasons. Even after lapse of eight months, L.W.2 did not
join the petitioner No.1 by citing one or the other reason. It was
informed to the petitioner No.1 that Visa is pending for stamping.
The petitioner No.1 took initiative and sent required documents for
Visa processing. L.W.2 secured Visa in March 2013 and left to USA
on 17.05.2013 i.e. after one year of the marriage. By then,
the petitioner No.1 was already a citizen of USA.
7. It is submitted that when L.W.1 landed at Dallas Airport at
USA, she created nuisance. Every day she continued to create one
or other problem to the petitioner No.1 and finally, on 26.05.2013,
she left to Michigan State, where she previously resided and studied
MS. It is submitted that L.W.2 stayed with the petitioner No.1 only
for ten days stating that she had no interest in marriage and did
not want to lead a marital life with the petitioner No.1. It is stated
that when L.W.2 left the company of the petitioner No.1,
he consulted an attorney and filed a Suit No.231-537990-13 for
annulment of marriage before the 231st Judicial District Court,
Tarrant County, Texas. The suit was heard on 08.05.2014 and a
final decree of divorce was passed on 03.06.2014 annulling the
marriage on mutually agreed terms and conditions without any
alimony.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that concealing
the fact of annulment of marriage by mutual consent by foreign
Court, the respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint on
06.05.2014, based on which a case in Cr.No.414 of 2014 was
registered wherein charge sheet has been filed and registered as
CC.No.3141 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420
and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He submitted that the
divorce was obtained on mutually agreed terms between the
petitioner No.1 and L.W.2 in USA on 03.06.2014, which was much
prior to the lodging of a private complaint by the respondent No.2.
When the divorce petition was filed by the petitioner No.1 in USA,
as an after thought, the respondent No.2 lodged a private
complaint on 06.05.2014. During investigation, the Investigation
Officer was not informed about divorce and annulment of marriage
in USA. As the marital relationship between the petitioner No.1 and
L.W.2 has come to an end, the question of prosecuting the
petitioners would not arise.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that if
the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet were
genuine, the same allegations would have been made before the
Court in USA. L.W.2 would not have agreed for annulment of
marriage and divorce by mutual consent. L.W.2 never made any
allegation of mental and physical harassment in USA and the
respondent No.2, who is the mother of L.W.2, lodged a complaint in
India when divorce proceedings were pending in USA.
10. Learned counsel submitted that having accepted divorce in
USA, the question of prosecuting the petitioners in Indian Courts
would not arise. The respondent No.2 and L.W.2 played fraud and
abused the process of law by lodging a private complaint against
the petitioners. For more than one year after marriage, the
petitioner No.1 and L.W.2 did not have marital life. Thereafter,
as stated above, they had marital life only for a period of ten days,
which is undisputed and as such, the allegation of harassment for
the purpose of additional dowry is baseless, concocted and fictitious
for the purpose of falsely implicating the petitioners in this case.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have
not made out any case for quashing CC.No.3141 of 2019. Based on
the statements of witnesses, the charge sheet was filed.
The divorce proceedings in USA would not have any bearing on the
criminal proceedings in India. No, prima facie, case is made out by
the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in CC.No.3141 of
2019.
12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor representing the State.
13. Though notice was sent to respondent No.2 and served, none
appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. The petitioners filed a
memo dated 05.07.2024 stating that they have sent notice to the
respondent No.2 on several occasions, it was returned unserved
due to insufficient address. The petitioners secured the correct
addressed of the respondent No.2 and served notice on the
respondent No.2, which is acknowledged by the postal-tracking put
up along with the memo vide SR.No.61123 of 2022 dated
18.07.2022.
14. The record discloses that L.W.2 instituted FCOP.No.684 of
2014 before the Family Court, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District,
seeking dissolution of marriage with petitioner No.1 on the ground
of cruelty and for permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000/-. The OP
was allowed on 11.09.2018 granting divorce on the ground that the
marriage was not consummated and permanent alimony of
Rs.30,00,000/- was awarded to L.W.2. The judgment passed by the
District Court, 231st Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas, USA,
was relied upon by L.W.2 in the OP and marked as Ex.P2.
15. It is to be noted that filing of criminal case in India merely
because divorce petition was filed by the petitioner No.1 - husband
cannot be held to not maintainable. The private complaint in
Cr.No.414 of 2014 was lodged by the respondent No.2 on
06.05.2014. The final decree of divorce was passed on 03.06.2014
in the District Court, 231st Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas,
USA, by recording that the marriage between the parties has
become unsupportable because of discord and conflict of
personalities and there are no chances of reconciliation.
L.W.2 was not granted any alimony by the County Court. However,
the marital estate was divided and allotted to the petitioner No.1
and L.W.2.
16. The hearing of the divorce case was held on 08.05.2014 in
the District Court, 231st Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas,
USA and final decree was passed on 03.06.2014. It appears that
the divorce petition was filed much before 06.05.2014 (date on
which private complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2).
Even when the proceedings were going on before the County Court,
USA, parallely, complaint was lodged and criminal proceedings were
launched by L.W.1, the mother of L.W.2. The Investigation Officer
was not informed about the divorce case and annulment of
marriage between the petitioner No.2 and L.W.2 before the County
Court, USA. There is no reference of divorce case in the complaint
dated 06.05.2014.
17. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the non-disclosure of
divorce case in USA and no contest by L.W.2 was a crucial factor,
which if disclosed in the private complaint, would have had a
bearing on the investigation and final report in CC.No.3141 of 2019.
In the entire contents of the charge sheet, nowhere it was stated
that divorce case was filed and divorce was granted in USA.
The charge sheet was filed on 28.06.2014 and divorce was granted
much before on 03.06.2014. The pendency of divorce case and
thereafter, granting of decree of divorce should have been informed
to the Investigation Officer. The circumstances clearly indicate that
while L.W.2 appeared in USA, the respondent No.2 (mother of
L.W.2) filed a private complaint without disclosing the filing and
pendency of divorce case and thereafter, grant of divorce in USA.
Thus, continuance of prosecution in CC.No.3141 of 2019 is in gross
abuse of process of law and ends of justice would be met if the
proceedings in CC.No.3141 of 2019 are quashed and they are
accordingly quashed.
The criminal petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
March 25, 2025
DSK
