ORDER :

This petition is filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.23 of 2013 on the file of Women Police Station, Saroornagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, which was later amended as PRC No.131 of 2020 before the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar.

2. The petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant was his wife. She lodged a report before the Woman Police Station, Saroornagar against him and his parents, sister and brother-in-law under Sections 307, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘DP Act). As per the report given by the 2nd respondent, she was married with the petitioner on 19.02.2009 and at the time of marriage, on the demand of the petitioner and his parents, her parents gave two plots worth about Rs.1.00 crore as dowry, cash of Rs.10.00 lakhs, a diamond ring worth Rs.50,000/-, Rs.2.00 lakhs for purchase of clothes and 100 tulas of gold and 10 kgs., of silver. After marriage, she joined the petitioner for marital life and stayed with him in India for one month under one roof and after that she went to Sydney, Australia along with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and his parents harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.35.00 lakhs. On the demand of the petitioner and his parents, the father of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.15.00 lakhs on 10.02.2011 to purchase a house in Australia, but the petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the given amount and harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.35.00 lakhs. She worked in Sydney along with the petitioner, but the petitioner always harassed, abused and bet her. On 16.12.2012, her parents-in-law came to Sydney and they started harassing her along with the petitioner for want of additional dowry. The petitioner forcibly got aborted her pregnancy twice. Her sister-in-law Sushmita and her husband Venkat Ram Reddy also instigated the petitioner to harass her. Every week they used to come to their house in Sydney, abuse her in filthy language and harass her. The petitioner forcibly indulged in sex with her on the same day of her abortion. On 09.02.2013, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language and started beating her. He bet her on her waist with beer bottle (broken bottle) and caused injuries to her and hit her to the wall and dragged on the floor. She sustained several injuries on her body. He tried to kill her, throttled her neck. She fell down in unconscious state. One of her friend reached the spot and she escaped from his hands. On the next day, she explained the incident to her parents and requested them to take her back to India. On her request, her father booked a ticket to India and she came back to India on 13.02.2013. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case vide Crime No.23 of 2013 for the above offences and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner stating that a supplementary charge sheet would be filed against A2 to A5 whenever stay was vacated by this Court. The same was taken cognizance by the V Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, numbered as PRC No.131 of 2020.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. No representation for the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant. The notice sent to her was returned as ‘unclaimed’, hence, considered it as deemed service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent was not an Indian citizen. She was an Australian citizen. Similarly, the petitioner was also an Australian citizen. As per the averments of the complaint, no offence was committed on the Indian soil by any of the accused, as such, the Indian Police and the courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No medical reports were filed by her to show that she sustained serious injuries. If the petition