The High Court · 2025

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENVAS RAO cRtMI NALPETlTto NNo i41 OF 2022 1. Akula Rohith S/o. J6g6n Mohan, Aged about 34 3-407/27, Hi-Tech Co A.Venkat years, Occ. Softwa gan Mohan, S/o rict.(A-1) Na rasaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. vt. Emplo yee, R/o. 3_4o7l2t Hi-Tech Colony, Mancherial Town and 3. Akula Ramadevi, Wlo. Jagan Mohan, Aged about 59 Years, Occ. Retd. Govt Emplo yee, No.3-407/27 Hi-Tech Cotony, Mancherial Town and District.(A-3) 4. Ravali Wlo Srikanth, Aged about 31 years, Occ. House wife, Ri/o. H No.126, 2"d floor,1 't Stage,2nd Phase, gth Matn Bangalore.( A-4) ... Petitioner/Accused 1.M uppidi Kishan Babu, S/o Muppidi Satyanarayana Aged about 63 years, occ. Ex-service man Ri/o.H no.5-6-1 47 Maruthi nagar, Karimnagar town and 2. The State of Telan gana, rep., by Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderab ad District. AND petition under sect . j!'l4;'u;f ffi ; f r:,:"ht",xit'+"::i'j:"fl',.:f "?,ii:li'8-lli,x'"1 staiion r<ai;mn;;;;i; fiJiffi::3/:?'rffi:'e No 1 12 or zozt-oi'tit:i;#i;iL I.A. NO:1 OF 2022 "'Respondents/comprainant Petition under Section -4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances :L,!iir"{i,.lnii',ffi ":',:.'."J}1;I;lnflliietition,irre-ni-gh;;il;,, :::lI ,?:HJ::l"ii.i?'"i,ff "Y"'""pJi"""s"t"i#:#,,i"u"?:;:l[;8"i'ffi l.A. No :1OF 2024 Between: The State of Telangana, rep., by public prosecutor, High Court for the State of I elangana at Hyderabad. ...PetitionerlRespondent AND 1 2

3. 4 5 tu["$#t,fl{ui'*t'#i$l+*ti-+"**s;}:ffi; #mt'mr***'+ t****t*'' i' H:',EIs:'Iil3X?:*'JlY::313:':;:mmnE;l'-?1"iXlxl"':Jf:li District. '..RespondenUComplainant (R'5 is not necessary Party) ' BN'S: ry^tH Petition under Section 528 of that in the circumstances o,,.ol,lii.""*";:.:*::,$ffi ."'"T'I[:]iilU"i"T:.:'fl [:?''+$ii: '-i.flzx',T :1"r13ffi# ' the Memorandum of This petition coming on for hearing, yogl -?Hg",i,\i'!L iil"l' G round s of c rimi nal " "tt""' li;J,l,Jb x, l*: "; 5;l*,: *:' $'il'' "i';sffi :?;:'" il' o i'l o" i sta n t P u b r i c tnE it*p"*-"ni rtro z ano srixarum Chendu Komireddy' Prosecutor on behalf "' nOr""ui" t"t the ResPondent No 1' The Court made the following: ORDER upo"n t"'l'-lt',,,[ -o^"rr.,nn "'n - J TI{E IrON'BLE Sf,TT.TUSTICE J.SREENI\/AS RAO CRIMrNAL P TION No- 4L of 2022 oRDER: This Criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.J by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crirne No. 112 of 2C.27 of , Women police Station, Karimnagar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 42O of the Indian penal Code, 1g60 (for short 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 (for short .the Act).

2. Heard Sri T.pradhyltrnna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kararn Chendu Komireddy, learned counsel for respondent No. I / d.e facto complainant ald Sri M.Vivekanalda Reddy, learned Assistalt pubiic prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2_State. a Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Respondent No.l lodged a complaint against the 1

15.O8.20 15 petitioners on 03 '72 '2C)21 before the Station House Off,rcer, Karimnagar Wornen Police Station' stating that trer daughter Muppidi Ka'qra marriage was pcrformed with petitioner No 1 on 15 12'2014 and he spent an amount of Rs.15 laktr s for Performing the marriage, and he tras grven 50 tulas of goid worth Rs' 1O laktrs and 4 tulas of gold as 'adapaduchu katnam and tkrereafter, the rnarriage was registered. After the marriage, Petitioner No' 1 and his daughter were blessed with a son on Accr.rsed No.4, who is his cousin sister' started harassrng No.1 got married his dar.ghter saying that if acclrsed aganr., theY wotlld have get Rs'2 crores as dowry' In the year 2f 15, his damghter came to India and accused Nos'2 Again in the and 3 dernarded an amolrnt of Rs 1 year 2f 18, his daughter came to India and he gave Rs'10 As petitioner No.1 wants to laktrs to accused Nos'2 and 3' Reddy, on 2l.ll'2o2t rrrarry SuPriYa D/o' Venkat Jagitial, he hled a suit in O S' No'889 of 2O2l before the Principal .Jlrnior Civil Jud'ge, Karirnnagar and obtained ad- interim injr-rnction. Basrng on the above said comPlaint, the present crirne rvas registered. 3

4. Submissions of petitioners: Iearned Senior Counsel for the

4.7 Learned Senior Counsel subrnitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crirne- Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Sections 498_A and 42O of IpC and Section 4 of the D.p. Act are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 was performed with the daughter of respondent No.1 orr 15.12.2014. Thereafter, they went to United States of America (USA). On 15.O8.2O15 they were blessed with a son in U.S.A. The wife of petitioner No.1 approached the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, Illinois (hereinaiter referred to as .Circuit for dissolution of rnarriage. In the said case, petitioner No. 1 and his wife entered into a marital settlernent agreement on 2O.O4.2O21 and, basing upon the sarne, the said circuit court passed the judgment on 2a.o4.2o21 and dissolved the marriage between them. Cot.rrt)

4.2. He frrrther submitted that on 27.LO.2O2I petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 and 1 l I l i , I i I I l 4 respondent No' 1 the father-in-1aw and his wife, who are none other than and rnother-in-1aw of petitioner No' 1' a rnernorandurn of rlnderstanding (for have entered into short ,MOU'). Pursuant to the salne, all the gold ornamerrts and an arnount of Rs'24 lakhs by way of cheques were given to responde nt No ' 1 towards full and of both ttre Parties r'e', hnal settlernent ald Palents were signed. Thereafter' petitioner No.1 and his wife O.S.No.889 of 2O2l before respondent No. I filed suit in ttre Principai Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar' against petitioner No' 1 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining petitioner No ' 1 from contracting second marriage with Supriya on 29.17.2Ci21 or any other woman' Along with ttre said suit' he filed I.A.No.627 of 2O2l for grant of interirn injunction' The learned Principal Junior Civil Ju'dge curn-Judicial Magistrate of First C1ass, Karimnagar without properly considering the contentions of petitioner No ' 1 granted temporary injunction on lO'72'2O2\' Aggrieved by the above said order' petrtroner 4.3 No.1 approached this Court and filed C'R'P'No'277 of 2022 and this Court aliowed the said case on lo'lO'2O22' 5 Aggrieved by the sarne, respondent No.l approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed S.L.p. (Civil) No.1895 of 2023 and the same was disposed of on 2a.Ll.2rJ23.In the meanwhile, respondent No. J lodged the present complaint against the petitioners with false a_llegatr,ons suppressing the factum of granting decree of divorce between petitioner No.1 and his daughte r on 2g.O4.2O2 1 and a,lso execution of MOU by respondent No.l and his wife with accused Nos.2 and 3 on 27.70.2C,27, only with an intention to harass the petitioners in one way or other and the same is clear abuse of process of law.

4.4 while disposing the S.L.p. order, dated 20.).7.2io23. daughter of respondent He also submitted that the Hon,ble Apex Court, (Civil) No. 1B9S of 2Ci23 uide specihcally observed that the No. 1 is entitled to initiate Proceedings before a Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. However, the daughter of respondent No.l has not initiated any proceedings against petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 with an intention to harass the petitioners, iiled the complaint, though the rngredients of Sections 4gB_A and. 42O of IpC and Section 4 of the D.p. Act are not attracted against thern and the 6 t No.1 is clear abuse of liable to be quastred' cornPlaint fiIed bY resPonden process of law and the same is 5. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No'1: Learned counsel for respondent No 1 submitted 5.1 that ttre rnarriage between petitioner No' l and daughter of resPondent No' 1 was performed as Per the Hindu rites and cr.rstorns at Karimnagar on 15.12.2014 and the Circrlit Court is not Lraving jurisdiction to grant decree of divorce and the same is not enforceable r-rnder law' further submitted that the MOU entered by respondent No.1 and his wife with petitioner Nos'2 and 3 is relating to the financial transactions between thern only and basing on the said MOU, the petitioners are not entitled to qr'rash the procecdings in the present crime' He He further subrnitted that therc are specific 5.2 allegation s levelled against the petitioners in the cornplaint that they harassed tlre daughter of respondent petitioner No.1, witkrout No.1 for additional dowrY and under Indian law' is obtaining decree of divorce proceeding to perforrn second and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are marriage with one Supriya supported petitioner No. 1. ...,: 7 Hence, the ingredients of Sections 49g_A and. 42e of IpC and Section 4 of the D.p. Act are attracted agarnst them. Hence, the criminal petition filed by the petitioners rs lia ble to be dismissed.

5.3 In support of his con tention, he relied upon the following judgrnents; i) Y.Narasimha Rao and others v. y.Venkata Lakshmi and anotherr; and ii) Rupak Rathi v. Anita Chaudharyz. Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents and petitioner No.4 is the sister and respondent No. 1 is father_in_law of petitioner No. 1. It further reveals that the m€rrrtage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the daughter of respondent No.1 on 15.12.2C-14 at Karimnagar and after the marriage, they went to U.S.A and during their wedlock, they blessed with I (l^991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 451 ,2014 AtR CC 2231 (P&H) 8 a son in U'S'A' on 15'O8'2O15' 7 lodged a daughter The record furtkrer reveals that respondent No'1 C)3.12.2O2I stating that his comPlaint orr along with her rninor child returned to India in the month of Decembet' 2Ol5' At that point of time' petitioner Nos 2 and 3 demanded Rs'1 crore towards add.itional dowry' and warned that if they failed to give the same, they will perform second marriage to their son with went to U.S A He Thereafter, his daugtrter anottler girl' that once again his daugkr'ter carne to india further stated inforrned that th.at time, his daugkrter in 2OlA, at petitioner No 1 is harassing her for additional dowry and he has given Rs'1O lakhs to petitioner Nos'2 and 3 and his dar-ghter went to U'S'A' In Oc[ober' 20 19' petitioner No' 1 threw his d.amghter out of his house along with rninor son' Petitioner No' 1, without obtaining decree of divorce as per the Indian law, is trying to perforrn second marriage with one Supriya S/o Venkat Reddy on 29'll'2o21' At that stage, kre filed the sr'rit in O'S'No'889 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Jr--rdicial Magistrate of First Class at Karirnnagat, wherein ad interim injunction was granted. Basing on the said cornplaint' the ; i i i g ,r-) present crime was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 49a_A arfi, 42O of IPC and Section 4 of the D.p. Act a. The record further reveals that daugtrter of respondent No.1 filed Case No.2O 20 D 2OIO before the Circuit Court in U.S.A. for seeking dissolution of marriage. In the said case, the daugtrter of respondent No.l and petitioner No. t have entered into marital settlement agreement on 2O.O4.2O27. pursuant to the same, the Circuit Court passed the judgment dated 2a.o4.2o21, dissolving the marriage between petitioner No.1 and daughter of respondent No. 1.

9. The record further also reveals that subsequently petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No.1 and his wife have entered into MOU dated 27.LO.2O27. As per the above said MOU, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 returned goid ornaments/ articles and also paid an amount of Rs.24 lakhs through nine (9) cheques. In the said MOU, it is specificarly mentioned that 'Both the parties as mentioned in MOU agree and undertake full pa5rment and receipt of ornaments/money and there would be no furttrer claims against each ottrer party.,, Even according to the parties, l0 the cheqrres issued by petitroner encashed bY resPondent No' 1' Nos.2 and 3 were It is pertinent to rnention that respondent No' 1 10. has not rnentioned about the execution of MOU between petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No'1 and his wife on 27 .IO.2O2 1 including return of the gold ornarnents and payrnent of Rs'24 lakhs in his cornplaint dated O3.l2.2O21 which is subseqr'rent to ttre above said MOU dated 27.1O.2021' The record further reveals that in O'S'No'889 of 1 1. 2O2l fi.led, by respondent No'1 on 26'11'2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-curn-Judicial Magistrate of FirstClassatKarirnnagar,grantedinterirninjrrnctionon lO.12.2O2) in I.A'No'627 of 2O2l restraining the petitioner No.1 contracting second rnarriage' Aggrieved by. the same, pctitioner No'1 hled C'R'P' No'277 of 2022 be fore this Court invoking the provisions under Article 227 of ttre Constitution of India and this Court allowed the said C.R.P. by setting asid'e the order passed by the trial Court on 1O.1O.2O22. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed S.L.P. (Civil) No.1895 of 2C.23 and tlrc same was disposed of on 28. 11.2023. II 12 Upon perusa-l of ttre order of the Hon,ble Apex court, it reveals that respondent No. t herein submitted before the Hon,ble Apex Court that his daughter cor.rld not travel to India to initiate legal proceedings due to non_ renewal of the passport of the child born.frorn the wedlock and also raised a ground that the validity of the decree of divorce granted by the Circuit Court at U.S.A. In the said S.L.P., the Hon,ble Suprerne Court by way of interim measrrre on O4.O2.2023 directed petitioner No.1 shall do the needful for renewal of the passport of his son. Pursuant to the said interirn direction, passport of the child has been renewed. 13 It is very mtrch relevant to extract the operative portlon of the order datecl 2a.l7 .2C/23 passed bv the Hon'ble Supreme CoLrrt, which reads as follows: of the India before

5. That being so, nothing prevents ttre daughter appellant, namely, Kavya from travelling to and initiating the a a co,rt or competent, j:"::,ff ,, :"".#;:: with law. We do not express any opinion the maintainability of such proceedings and leave it for the Court concerned to decide such issues. Suff1ce it to say that the conclusion arrived at by the High Cotrrt in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order, when parties had not even led their ewidence, is t2 whoily premature, uncalled for and the sarne can'not beallowedtoCauseanyirnpedimentinthewayofthe dan-rghteroftheappellant(Kavya),ifshedecidesto initiate any proceedings in accordance with law' It goes without saying that the respondent sha1l be entitled to raise all the objections with regard to maintainabilityoftheproceed.ingstobeinitiatedby Kanya and sucLr objections shall be considered by the Cor.rrt in accord'ance with law' , the suit filed by tkre appellant has bee n ile dismissed following the obserwations rnadc or.rrt in the impugned order' no fi. rther required to be issued except to grant daughtcr of the appellant' as already

6. Since meanwh by the High C directions are libertY to the observed." t4 In the above said order' the Hon'ble Suprerne Court held ttrat tkre dar'rghter of resPondent No' 1 rs in accordance with law' entitled to initiate the proceedings During tLre cor-rrse of hearing' learned Senior Counsel appearing on beha-lf of the petitioners submitted that as on today the daughter of respondent No' i has not hled any proceedings before the cornpetent Court subsequent to the disposal of the above said S'L'P' by the Honlcle Suprerne Court and the said subrnission has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No' 1'

15. Tn Y.Narasirnha Rao (supra), the Hon'ble i I I 1i : l I I I I l3 Supreme Court held in para No.2O, which reads as follows: 'From the aforesaid discussion the following rule ca:t be deduced for recognising a foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and perma_nently resides and the relief is grarted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voruntarily a,d effectivery submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief aJthough the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties." t6. In the above said judgment, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that the decree passed by the foreign Court unenforceable against the respondent therein. Whereas, in the case on hand, the damghter of respondent No.1 has not filed any proceedings that the decree passed by the foreign Court is not enforceable under law. t4 ln Rupak Rathi tt- Anita Chaudloryit, t!:,e Punjab & 17. Har5rana High Court considered the enforceability of a UK divorce decree dissolving a Hindu rnarriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Court held that when a Hindu rnarriage is solemnised r-rnder Hindu law, both the jurisdiction and the grounds for dissolution must conforrn to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955' irrespective of whether the parties reside abroad. Hind.u spouses carry their personal law with them, and even if a foreign court asstlmes jurisdiction, it can oniy adjudicate on grounds available under HMA. Since "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not a statritory grott.nd under Section 1 3 HMA, a foreign decree based on it fails the twin test of jr.rrisdiction and grounds, and hence cannot be binding or recognised in India r-rnder Section 13 CPC' The Court clarified that exception (iii) in Y. Alcrcrs inr.ha Rao (supra) cannot be read in isolation to validate foreign decrees on gror.nds absent in Indian law; consent decrees rnust still rest on HMA grounds. It further held ttrat where the binding effect of a foreign decree is disputed, the matter requires proper pleadings and cvidence, and a divorce 3 2008(16)SCC 1 17 l5 petition under HMA cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule lt CpC. Finafly, the Court taid down guiding principles for trial courts, stressing case_by_case adjudication while safeguarding ttre rights of spouses, particularly women in NRI marriages.

18. It is relevant to mention that this Court is not going into the factum.of whether the judgment passed by the Circuit Court dated 2g.O4.2Cl21 dissolving the rnarriage between the petitioner No.1 and daughter of respondent No.1 is valid or not and also the enlbrceability of the above said decree on the ground of irretrievable break down of held in the above said judgments Rao (supra) and Rupak 1. e. Rathi (supra), especially this Court is not having jurisdiction to deal with ttre above said issue in the present petition, since ttre scope of this crirninal petition i.e. whether the petitioners are entitled to seek quash the crime against them or not, is very, limited. marriage, as Y.Narasirnha

19. It is pertinent to rnention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C. or the extraordinar5z writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in Stcte of Haryana u. Bhajan , ! I t6 Inl4, wherein the Honble Apex Court ilh'rstratively catalogued. categories of cases warranting ql.asl-rment' such as when the allegations taken at lace value do not constitute an oft-ence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by rnala fides, or where would amount to abuse of continuancc of Proceedings process, while camtioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secllre the ends of justice' in Geddarn 20. It is also relevant to mention that Jhansi w. State of Telanganas' tLre Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principles that were invoked to quasLr criminal proceedings under Sections 4ga-\' 506 IPC' Sections 3 and 4 of ttre Dowry Prohibition Act' 1961' and tkreDomesticViolcnceAct,2oo5,insofaraStheyrelated husband's aunt and cotlslrl' as the allegations thern were found to be ornnibus and general' specific overt acts, resting merely orr hearsay and further weakened' by the fact that they evidence, resided separately from the rnatrirnonial horne' The Court held that dragging such d'istant relatives into criminal the absence of clear particr'rlars of prosecutlon, bereft of to ttre against 1n 41992 Supp (1) SCC 335 s 2025 SCC Online SC 263 i i I I i l : i i I I I I I 't t i I I r J I I t7 harassment or do*,ry a.-a.ra, squarely attracted the Bhajan Lal principles, and permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing but al abuse of the process of law, though the trial against the principal accused the husband and mother_in_iaw was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

27. It is already stated supra that respondent No.l filed complaint dated 02.12.2Ci27 suppressing the factum of entering into MOU dated 22.7O.2O21 with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 along with his wife and receiving gotd ornaments and also cash of Rs.24 lakhs by way of cheques. Further, petitioner No.l and daughter of respondent No.l are living separately since October, 2019 rn U.S.A- ald subsequent to disposal of the S.L.p., daughter of respondent No.1 has not initiated proceedings against petitioner No.1 or petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the proceedings i.e. Crime No. 1 12 of 2O2l , against the petitioners would amounts to abuse of process of law 22' For the foregoing reasons and the pec,liar facts and circurnstances of the case as well as the principles , ) E la,id down by the Hon'lcle Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and' Geddam Jhonsi (suPra)' this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr'P'C' to quastr the proceedings against the petitioners

23. In the result, tkre criminal petitron ts a1lowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No' 112 of 2O2l of Wornen Police Station' Karimnagar' are 1-rereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding tkris case' As a sequel thereto , miscellaneou s applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed' Sd/. T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR one Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J' SREENIVAS RAO \r'rrE r qrr --'iroini" Lordship's kind Perusal) //TRUE COPY// SEC Sftorr,"=* To, Karimnagar. Hyderabad [OUTI l.TheJudicialFirstClassMagistrateSpecialMobile(Excise)Courtat ,. il;'Silil House officer' KarimnagarWomen Police Station' Karimnagar a. ffX'3ta, to the Public Prosecutor' High court for the state of relangana at a o'n"-ct to llr. r.s. Anirudh Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] ;. il; 66 io sii r<"rum Chendu Komireddv' Advocate toPUCl 6. 1'l LRCoPies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company 8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court for the " it"t" ftign Court Buildings at Hyderabad' 9. Two CD CoPies "ir"6ng"n,' Affairs, New Delhi HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 ORDER CRLP.No,41 ot 2022 ] 1 I i i l : , l t I I I I I I l 1 HE SIA o() t I qr:P 2t25 i.i .7 .:i ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION r\