HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD *****

Criminal Petition No.5667 OF 2021 Between:

Ghadiam Harshavardhan Reddy and others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor and another ..Respondents/Complainant DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :02.02.2024 Submitted for approval.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No Judgments?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No Judgment?

__________________

K.SURENDER, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER + CRL.P. No.5667 of 2021 % Dated 02.02.2024 # Ghadiam Harshavardhan Reddy and others … Petitioners And $ The State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor Respondents/Complainant ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri T.Anirudh Reddy ^ Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor for R1 Sri K.Nandini @ A.Nandini Reddy for R2 >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

1 (2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 734

2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 3 MANU/TL/1033/2021 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5667 of 2021

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.8986 of 2021 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the case according to the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent are that, her marriage with A1 was performed on 08.02.2015. The defacto complainant and A1 were acquainted with each other prior to marriage. One week after marriage, both A1 and the defacto complainant left to USA, where they were working. At the time of marriage, the father of the defacto complainant spent Rs.25.00 lakhs and also presented 700 grams of gold in the form of ornaments. Expensive gifts were given to the family members. A demand was made by petitioners to transfer house plot at Kadapa worth Rs.90.00 lakhs in the name of 1^st petitioner. During the trip to Europe in the month of May, 2017, A1 behaved rudely with her. Both were earning and A1 exploited her financially and she did not have freedom of spending her own money. A1 bought two cars for himself and did not allow her to purchase jewellery or clothes of her choice. The conduct of A1 was getting abnormal. However, the parents of A1 supported him and did not ask A1 to mend his ways. Son was born on 15.12.2019. During November, 2016, the defacto complainant returned to India and she was humiliated by the petitioners. During her delivery also, she developed issues and also after delivery. However, petitioners did not take car of her. On 24.06.2020, A1 deserted her and started living in separate residence, having filed for divorce in the USA.

3. Thereafter, there were differences regarding child custody. Ultimately, she was compelled to leave USA and came to India on 22.11.2020. Narrating the harassment, a complaint was filed with the police, which was investigated and charge sheet filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that one week after the marriage, A1 and defacto complainant left to USA and staying together in the US. None of the incidents have taken place in India and all the allegations leveled are in the US. For the said reason of there being no sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C, proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. Learned counsel further argued that divorce application was filed by A1 on 19.05.2020 and as a counter blast to the said divorce application, criminal complaint was filed on 23.11.2020 with false allegations. In fact, both of them have approached the Courts in the US regarding child custody. The parties have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 16.03.2022, there was a consensus in between A1 and the defacto complainant regarding child custody and all th