THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6048 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.281 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.04.2024 respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a report before the Police against the petitioners stating that her younger daughter, Shalini, was married to Pogula Bharath Kumar on 30.10.2015 at CER Club, Yellandu, after a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- cash and 20 tolas of gold was given as per the demand of the groom's family. After marriage, the couple moved to the United States, where her husband was working in a private company in Oregon. Though the marriage was initially smooth, Shalini was later subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment by her husband, his aunty Latha, uncle Satyanarayana, and brother-in-law Sharath Kumar. She was denied conjugal rights, confined in the house, abused in vulgar language, suspected of her character, threatened, and assaulted. She was allowed to visit her maternal home only twice in eight years, and the accused also threatened to take away her children and demanded additional dowry. As a result, the victim went into depression and sent a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Khammam, on 15.04.2024.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.281 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri S.M. Rafee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no complaint was ever made by the de facto complainant or her daughter to any local authority in the United States of America at any point of time and that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, much less under Sections 498-A or 506 of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. He further submitted that the statements of LW1 to LW5 were recorded when LW2, the daughter of the complainant and wife of petitioner No.1, was not even physically present before the Station House Officer in India, and therefore the credibility of such statements is questionable and that LW1 and LW3 to LW5 are closely related and hence interested witnesses, and their statements are purely hearsay in nature, lacking any direct knowledge of the alleged incidents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that none of the statements specify the place or time of the alleged acts of harassment or abuse and that LW2 and accused No.1, along with their two minor children, have been residing in the United States of America even at the time of lodging the complaint, registration of FIR, and filing of the final report. He further contended that accused Nos.2 to 4 reside in separate households and have no day-to-day interaction with the complainant’s daughter, and their implication in the case is nothing but a misuse of process and a vitiated attempt to rope in the entire family. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand,