Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1178
2006(3) L.S. 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH : : AT HYDERABAD
Present:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice
A. Gopal Reddy
Vijaya Saradhi Vajja ..Petitioner
Vs.
Devi Sriroopa Madapati
& Anr., ..Respondents
Crl.P.No.3934/05 Date:10-10-2006
Mr.C. Padmanabha Reddy, (Senior Counsel) and Mr.C. Praveen Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr.Nooty Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2.
Headnote:INDIAN PENAL CODE, Secs.498-A & 506 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, Secs.188,2(g) and 2(h) and 202, 3, 4 & 482 - Police registered crime against petitioner u/Secs.498-A and 506 IPC on basis of complaint lodged by his divorced wife for alleged telephonic threats from petitioner and U.S Consulate and proceeded with investigation - Petitioner sought to quash investigation on ground that complaint u/Sec.498-A is inconsistent with her application filed in Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and for custody of child.
Contention that once material relationship is severed between petitioner and complainant, registering crime for offence u/Sec.498-A IPC is nothing but abuse of process - Petitioner working in Multi National Company and also acquired citizenship of USA, and without prior sanction of Central Govt., as contemplated under proviso to Sec.188 Cr.P.C, police cannot register crime and investigate matter - Since petitioner and her son are American citizens, Courts at USA alone will have jurisdiction inrespect of matters relating to child custody.
Chapter XIII Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that Sec.177 to 184 are controlled by Sec.188 with regard to inquiry and such an inquiry cannot be undertaken without there being prior sanction by Central Govt., as per proviso to it.
“Inquiry” and “Investigation” - Defined - ‘Inquiry’ relates to proceedings before Magistrate prior to trial, while ‘Investigation’ is confined to proceedings taken by police or by any person other than Magistrate who is authorized in his behalf - Object of investigation is collection of evidence and of an inquiry taking of evidence for further action - Word ‘inquiry’ used in proviso to Sec.188 Cr.P.C is confined to proceedings before Magistrate prior to trial alone but cannot be extended to ‘Investigation’ by police - Bar, if any, will operate to inquiry before Magistrate after police laid charge sheet for offence.
In this case, allegations in complaint goes to show that petitioner making threats to complainant telephonically through his friends and family and he also threatened that he will take child with him and he can visit India at any time for said purpose and complainant receiving calls from U.S. Consulate in this regard - Once allegations in complaint disclosed that threats were received telephonically at India and crime is registered for offence u/Sec.506, it is not desirable to scuttle investigation at prime stage - Petitioner can insist for sanction of Central Govt., for collection of evidence during course of trial into charges so framed - Criminal petition, dismissed.
By means of filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.410 of 2004 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad initiated against him for the offence under Sections 498A and 506 IPC.
2. Factual matrix leading to filing this petition briefly stated as under:
3. The complainant lodged a compliant alleging that her marriage was performed with the petitioner-A1 on
16-08-1995 and they lived happily in USA for 8 1/2 years and had a son-Raviteja on 06-04-2000; petitioner developed illegal contact with Anju Kapoor for the last 3 years and tortured her both mentally and physically since then. He threatened for her life and targeted her son in his vicious threats and blackmailed her in every aspect and coerced to sign a custody decree and also a divorce, which he has later used to get married to Anju Kapoor. He also threatened that if she did not sign the papers, he would drag her to the US courts, which is a very expensive affair. He also took possession of her passport and blackmailed that he will not give the same until she sign the divorce papers. She signed those documents under great pressure and mental agony. The same was happened in USA where she had no support from family or friends. In view of the same, she has to left the States and came to Hyderabad to protect herself. Her mother-in-law-Pramila Vajja, who resides in Siddam Setty Apartments, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad made threats that petitioner-A1 will take the child with him and he can visit Hyderabad at any time. Apart from the same, she has been receiving calls from the US Consulate in this regard for the past few days. Therefore, she requires protection from the petitioner and her in laws. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered the above crime for the offence under Section 498A and 506 IPC and proceded with the investigation, which is now sought to be quashed on the ground that the complaint under Section 498A IPC is inconsistent with her application filed in the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and it was filed only with a view to prevent the petitioner from participating in the proceedings before the Family Court filed by her for child custody and restitution of conjugal rights under the threat of his arrest whenever he visits India. The complainant made wild allegations against the petitioner and his mother, whereas in the civil proceedings she has stated that she wants the petitioner to live with her as husband. By an order dated 06-04-2005 in FCAMP.No.79 of 2005 in FCA No.33 of 2005 this court was pleased to permit the petitioner to visit the child, if he comes down to India any time before the date of final hearing of the appeal. In view of the same, continuation of investigation is nothing but harassment and liable to be set aside. Further, the allegation of wild harassment was in USA and they never lived together in India much less Hyderabad and relate to the period prior to decree of divorce obtained on 04-01-2004. Since she is no more a wife on the date when the complaint was lodged, continuing the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process and liable to be quashed.
4. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once the marital relationship is severed between the petitioner and the complainant, registering the crime for the offence under Section 498A IPC is nothing but abuse of process. Petitioner being a qualified and established I.T. professional with executive responsibilities and working in a Multi National Company and also acquired citizenship of United States of America in 2003, without prior sanction of the Central Government as contemplated under proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C., police cannot register the crime and investigate into the matter. The complainant who came along with the child to India on 11-06-2004 filed O.P.No.326 of 2004 in the Family Court to appoint her as sole guardian of her minor so
