2020 Supreme(Telangana) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
G. Sri Devi, J.
Bhanu Prasad Variganji - Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 41432 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2020
U.D. Jai Bhima Rao, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 4 and 5 – Offence of harassment of women – Criminal breach of trust – Evidence - Charge sheet - Seeking to quash the proceedings - Marriage of petitioner with 3rd respondent was performed at Function Hall and same was also registered - However, said marriage was not consummated as 3rd respondent resisted for same - There was no giving or taking of dowry and on other hand petitioner had given gold ornaments worth Rs. 2.5 lakhs to 3rd respondent - Petitioner is a Software employee working in Florida - Thereafter, petitioner has completed VISA process and made arrangements for arrival of 3rd respondent to join with him in U.S.A., and 3rd respondent joined petitioner - Though 3rd respondent joined petitioner but her behaviour and actions are abusive in nature, which were never expected by petitioner - 3rd respondent subjected petitioner to torture and never allowed him to live with her at any point of time and day-byday her attitude became unbearable and even then petitioner bear the agony up – Held, trial cannot proceed beyond cognizance stage without previous sanction of the Central Government - Magistrate is therefore, free to proceed against accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by other alleged offences for which sanction would be required - Allegation that petitioner has demanded additional dowry is un-imaginary - A perusal of charge sheet clearly shows that there is no allegation or whisper about any particular date regarding demand of additional dowry - Moreover, 3rd respondent herself has sent an e-mail to petitioner to book a ticket to India to look after her mother, who is suffering from some ailment- So, question of 3rd respondent has been necked out by petitioner does not arise - Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2, it is suffice to conclude that contentions raised by 3rd respondent are without any substance and material produced before this Court directly indicates mala fides in prosecution of criminal proceedings against petitioner so also by abuse of process of Court - Writ Petition is allowed - Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUDGMENT
G.Sri Devi, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.599 of 2015 on the file of the XIIIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the marriage of the petitioner with the 3rd respondent was performed on 20.11.2013 at Sama Papireddy Function Hall, Balapur, Hyderabad, and the same was also registered on 22.11.2013. However, the said marriage was not consummated as the 3rd respondent resisted for the same. There was no giving or taking of dowry and, on the other hand, the petitioner had given gold ornaments worth Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is a Software employee working in Florida, U.S.A. As the petitioner has no time to stay in India, he left on 24.11.2013 and also informed the 3rd respondent that he will make travel arrangements for her to join with him. Thus, it is clear that after the marriage, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent did not live together. Thereafter, the petitioner has completed VISA process and made arrangements for the arrival of the 3rd respondent to join with him in U.S.A., and the 3rd respondent joined the petitioner on 21.01.2014. Though the 3rd respondent joined the petitioner, but her behaviour and actions are abusive in nature, which were never expected by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent subjected the petitioner to torture and never allowed him to live with her at any point of time and day-byday her attitude became unbearable and even then the petitioner bear the agony up to August, 2014. The 3rd respondent once again seriously abused in filthy language by shouting at him and breaking the things in the flat. In those circumstances, the petitioner called the U.S. Police and in their presence he left the house duly providing maintenance for her and started staying in the Hotel at California by the time he was transferred to that place. In view of the above situation, the petitioner approached the local Attorney and got filed a case for legal separation on 15.08.2014 vide Case No.614FL 013077 and on that basis, summons were issued to the 3rd respondent, who was still residing in the petitioner's house, while the petitioner was in a hotel. In response to the said notice, the 3rd respondent issued an e-mail to the petitioner's Attorney expressing her intention to protest the case filed by the petitioner and also seeking for legal expenses from him. Though, as per the U.S.A. Laws, there is no necessity for the petitioner to make any payment towards her legal expenses, the petitioner obliged to make payment by way of a cheque for 2000 dollars and handed over the said cheque to his Attorney. The 3rd respondent on coming to know the said fact through the petitioner's Attorney, approached the Attorney and collected the cheque from him on 25.08.2014. Apart from the said amount, 500 dollars were already paid by the petitioner along with the summons. It is also stated that though the 3rd respondent received legal expenses from the petitioner, she did not participate in the proceedings, but asked for settlement by demanding Indian Currency of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, which is equivalent to 30,000 dollars. The petitioner's Attorney in turn responded by saying that as per California Law, she cannot make such demand. But, she did not stand for the settlement and filed a case against the petitioner under Domestic Violence Act of California. When the petitioner met the police concerned, they informed that the investigation is in progress and it will be subject to the evidence provided by the 3rd respondent. Since the 3rd respondent has not produced any evidence before the Police concerned, they have not assigned any Case Number to the 3rd respondent complaint and