Continuance of criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC is considered an abuse of process as allegations do not establish a prima facie case and jurisdiction in India is not applicable for incidents arising outside the country.

ORDER :

B V L N Chakravarthi, J.

The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings for the offence U/s.498-A INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in C.C.No.5295/2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Court, Guntur.

2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1 and Sri Ch.Narendra Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner is the husband; petitioners No.2 and 3 are in-laws of M.Sri Lekha, the daughter of the 2^nd respondent; she is residing at United States of America (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.S.A.’); report was presented by the 2^nd respondent to the police basing on a letter of M.Sri Lekha; the marriage of the 1^st petitioner and M.Sri Lekha was solemnized on 31.03.2018 at Guntur; the parents of the bride stayed in U.S.A.; bride also stayed in U.S.A. and doing employment; the petitioner/A-1 was also doing software job in U.S.A.; subsequent to solemnization of marriage, bride and A-1 came to the house of A-2 and A-3; later they went to Tirupathi; thereafter disputes arose between wife and husband; A-1 abused his wife; he left her at Guntur and went to his native place; subsequently, A-1 and his wife went to U.S.A.; they were doing jobs at different places; they were meeting in the weekends; A-1 harassed his wife to resign the job; A-2 and A-3 went to U.S.A. and stayed with A-1 and his wife for some time; A-1 to A-3 harassed her; A-1 was harassing his wife at the instance of A-2 and A-3’ A-1 wants to beat his wife; the parents of bride advised A-1 to lead proper marital life; he did not heed them; later A-2 and A-3 left to India; the relatives of wife of A-1 visited the house of A-2 and A-3 and questioned them about the rude behavior of A-1; they did not come to the rescue of girl; instead they supported their son i.e., A-1; the girl did not file any report at U.S.A. against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 due to fear; the girl and her parents waited with a hope that the accused will change their attitude; therefore, the victim decided to file police case at her native place; hence sent a letter to the 2^nd respondent; he presented a report to the police; police registered the same as case in Cr.No.387/2019 for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and investigated into the case and laid charge sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the said offence.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners would argue that even if the allegations in the report and statement of the victim and other witnesses are considered on their face as true, there is no material to attract the offence U/s.498-A IPC or U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 would amount to abuse of process in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi Vs. State of Telangana , 2025 SCC Online SC 263 and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 AIR 604.

5. He would also submit that all the alleged facts would not disclose any criminal overt acts against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. The petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are not residing with the wife of A-1. She is residing at U.S.A. No