In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India private ljmitea v. The State of Uat

2. Smt.Apurupa Anne, Wo Kolli S_atyanarayana, Aged 36 years, Occ. pvt. Emptoee, R/o.Ftat No.G-3, HSR pride, (oao ttol+,-Xln'Coi.hv, f.fi.rrp"t Road. KpHB corony, R.R District. . REdpbtBErlii1[iN|;DrEii\tro Petition under Section 528 of BNSS ( old Section 482 of Cr.p.C.) praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of irimina] Petition, the High Court may be pleased to calt for records and quasfr the cnarg; sheet in cc.No.551 of 2o21(ord c.c.No. 4532 of 2013 ) on the fire of xr Ad;r. lletropolitan Magistrate, Medchar - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpalry against ihe Petitioner/Accused No. t herein l.A. NO:1OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai petition,the High court may ue pleased to grant stay of aI further proceedings incruding apfiearance of'the Petitioners /Accused No.1 in _cc.No 551 0t 2027(ord c.c.No. ot 2013) on the file of xl.Addl. IVletropotitan Magistrate, Medchal - Malkajgiri Diskici at Kukatpally, pending final disposal of the main Criminal petition . 'risrz This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI ,Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. S. MADHAVI, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.825 OF 2025 o RDER: This Cruninal Petition is filed under Sectio n i28 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short IlNSSl by petitionerT' accused No 1 to quash the proce edings against him in C.C.No.551 of 2O2l (Old C'C'No'4i32 of 2Oi3) on the lile of XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Medchat-Malkaj giri District at Kukatpally The o.:fences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 4-ct8(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC) and Sections 3 arrd 4 of Dowry Prohilltion Act, 1961(for short 'D'P Act')'

2. Heard Mr. Venkata Rangadas Kanuri' learned counsel for Petitioner and Ms' S.Madhavi, .earned Assistant Prrblic Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the material on record' J In spitt' of service of notice to respondent No 2/de- facto complainalt, there is no appearance on br:half of respondent \ o.2 2 JAK, J CRLP 825 2025 l::

4. On the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2, FIR bearing No.924 of 2OI3, dated 30.08.2013, was lodged in Kukatpally Housing Board Police Station under Section 498(,4) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. A Look Out Circular is issued against petitioner/accused No.1, as he is residing in USA. Accused Nos.2 and 3 obtained anticipatory bail. A charge sheet was filed on 20.12.2013 and the name of accused No.4/ sister-in-law of de-facto complainant was deleted in charge sheet.

5. The marriage between accused No.1 and de-facto complainant was performed on 19.06.2010. It is a_lleged that accused Nos.2 arld 3 demanded cash of Rs.15,00,000/- at the time of marriage. It is also alleged that as her parents informed that they have a share of two flats in plot of 5OO sq. yards in Kukatpally, an amount of Rs.10,00,0O0/- of dowry and Aadabidda Katnam was given. It is observed from the charge sheet that accused No.l informed de-facto complainant that another girl was very fond of him and is proposing him for marriage. It is also observed that other g{L"?t n E-mail informing that l !,?-' 3 ]AK, J CRLP_82 i 2025 she was living with accused No' 1 and sent intirnate photographs. it is further observed that it was stated by the other gir1, r'hat accused No 1 was marrying her only for the purpose of rnoney and he was not a propqr person' it is fur rl-rer observed from the charge sheet that 6. accused No.1 ;sed to harass her by demanding her t:ntire salary and rvas addicted to drinking' used to bea and abuse her in filthy language and for not transferrin q two plots in his narne. It is further observed that accused Nos' 1 to 3 were harrrssing physically and mentally' blackm'fling' pressurlzlng rrrd threatening to sign the divorce pilpers Hence, offenc'e s said to have been made out as pr:r the charge sheet.

7. Learnecl counsel for petitioner/ accused No'1 submitted that there is no truth in the allegations l:velled against petil.ioner and the allegations are omrr'i bus allegations. lhat there a-re no overt acts attributed to petitioner, except stating that he was harassing her for the said two plot.s to be transferred in his name' That about receiving of amount, it is submitted that it wrls not 'I 4 JAK, J oRLP 825 2025 demanded as dowry and that the parents of de_facto complainant had not handed over the sum arrd it was only for expenses of the marriage. That the allegations levelled for additional dowry, harassment egainst accused Nos.1 to 3 are not true ald that the allegations with regard to the relationship with other lady are all fabricated and false. It is further submitted that de_facto complainant had suicidal tendencies and was psychologically unstable. An affidavit is filed by petitioner, notarized, by Notary Public, State of Colarado. In the affidavit, it is pleaded that petitioner be permitted to appear before the trial Court by imposing conditions. It is also stated in the affidavit as oath that petitioner would cooperate with the trial in day to day proceedings. It is further requested to suspend the Look Out Circulars issued against petitioner in C.C.No.551 of 2027 (old case No.4532 of 2Ol3). It is lastly averred in the affidavit that accused be permitted to file appropriate application for recall of NBW,s before the trial Court. B. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court to the order 5 JAK, J cRr.P 8l5 2025 passed by lear-r-red Single Judge in Crl'P'No 3446 of 2027 andsubmitte.lthatinsimilarfactsarrdcircumstances, learneclsingle:Judgeissueddirectionsbyimpostng conditions anrl requested the Court to pass similar or'ler' g. Hearcl learned counsels, perused the recorcl and considered thr: rival submissions'

10. FIR bearing FIR No'924 of 2013 dated 30 08'2013 was register(r(l on the basis of complaint of dr:-facto complainant under Section 498(A) of IPC and Serctions 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. The Investigating Officer filed r:harge sheet on 2C\.12.2013 in C'C'No'551 of 202 1(O1ci case No.4532 of 2013) on the file of Xl Additiona-l Metror:oiitarr Magistrate, N{edchal-Malkaj giri District at Kukatpally' The sum and '; rbstance of the charge sheet is that petitioner/ ac cused along with accused Nos'2 and 3 had committed olf,:nces punishable under Section 498(Al of IPC and Sections. 3 and 4 of D'P' Act' It is observed fr'rm the charge sh eer. that Look Out Circular was issued rlgainst petitioner arcl the concerned Sub Inspector sought NBW's \ I i, : 6 JAK, J cRt,P E25 2025 ,) to be issued against accused No.1 for causing his production before the Court i 1. In similar facts and circumstances, .a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.p.No.3446 of 202 1 passed the foilowing order dated 14.06.2021. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: "In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India private ljmitea v. The State of Uat-., [.a."fr,,'-ir," Hon'ble Apex Court referring t. .h. .*l;l;;;;";;" !-{ ll.nr"raregorically heli rhat ,h" H;il ;;;;"; exerclse ol 1ts inherent nowers under Section-+S2 of Cr.P.C. has to quash ihe proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreire ";";;;;-'- Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex ;idi; -Court, rssues, this Court is not inclined ,o o"""i_r^,fr. proceedings in C.C.No.5g93 ol 2021. since there ;;-J;; The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit thal the police without toltowine rt," procedure laid down under Section _+rn .i ci pl'" y,l?y, .fottowing rhe guidetines i";";' ;y';; Hon Dle Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2 a_nd withou t conducting fair arld t.;=;;";; invesligation. laid the ctrarg"e sneet-;;;;;*;; !:,ij!"i*" herein showing rhe"m as ,b"";;;;";. i;; pouce have also issued LOC against accused Noi_ l. that they will be arrested on their ,.,r." ,. f.aji "., from Bangkok. ^^^{ neruqaf of the charge sheet in Crime No.48g of 2020 would reveal that there is no specihc _..,,ior, with regard to the efforts made by ti" i;;;;i;;til Officer to serve the notices under Section +in o? Cr.P.C. on the pelitioners herein. Admiiteaf v,"*l1 petitioners herein are in Balgkok, .r.n th;;: .h; ' AiR 2o2l sc 931 ') (2014) 8 scc 2.13 1 JAK, J CRI-P 82r; 2025 Investigatrng; Officer filed the charge sheet sholving them as abs,:onding Consirie rmg t}le said fact and also the fact that the police h'lvE already frled charge sheet which was irr.", "" file vide C.c. No.sagg of 2o2l atd a .lq".=t rvrrs; made by the Investigating Ofhcer to is"ue t'lon-gailable Warrant against the petitioners' it.,rl. C.,-;,,,,t Petition is disposed ot granting- liberty to rhe p"rtioners herein to appear before the.Xlll eliii-"rl C hief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad ' file an application to recall NBWs' il any' lssueo t'h em within one month from today and' "grir]"t tliereafter rliey sha1l appear before the said Court on itr"-"L"Ia,u. lf nearing wittrout contending that they ,r. no, raving knowledge of date of learing However, lre Police Officials of RGI Police Stalton ' i-rnig.u,r,',, Authorities or a-ny other. Authority shall .,o, o]r"t' hc petirioners either under the gulse ol i;";;.. -the guise of NBW, if any, pending against them in C C' No.5893 oi 2021." ,r' LoC, pendency of same or under

12. Be that rrs it may, it is not in dispute that petir'ioner is presently residing in USA, a Look Out Circular is issued against him. ,\n aff,rdavit is filed by petitioner statinil that heisu,illingtocooperatewithtrialandisintendingto traveltolndiarurdfacethetrialinthecase,pending'rnthe hle of XI AcLditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Merlchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally' A direction is being sought that permission be granted to petitioner to mirke an appiication belbre appropriate Court for recalling of \BW's issued (NBW's; issued pursuant to application mer'de by Investigating Clfficer). Further a direction-is. being sorLght to 8 JAK, J CRLP 825 202s i--) be issued to police Officials at Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport and to Immigration Authorities, that petitioner should not be arrested as Look Out Circular is pending against petitioner in C.C.No.55 | of 2O2l (old case No.4532 of 2O 13).

13. This Court, having considered the entire factua_l matrix of the case, perusal of the record ald charge sheet, is of the opinion that facts in Crl.p.No.3 446 of 2021 a:;e similar to that of the facts in this matter. This Court is not inclined to take different view to that of the order passed in Crl.P.No.3446 of 2021. It is submitted to the Court that date of hearing of the case is scheduled on r7.o4.2o25 and that petitioner intends to appear before the trial court on 1t.o4.2025.

14. Petitioner is permitted to file an application before the trial Court on his arrival for recalling of the NBW,s. It is directed to the Police Officials at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, to Immigration authorities and to any other authority/authorities, not to take any steps to arrest the petitioner upon landing in Hyderabad, at Rajiv Gandhi ,;t:9 9 JAK, J CRLP 8.15 2025 International Airport, under the guise of NBW's pending or even on the ground that Look Out Circular is pending against petitiorLer in C.C.No.55 l of 2O2l (Old C C'No'4532 of 2013).

15. With the above observations, this Crimina-l Petilion is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. P PADMANABHA REDDY PEPUTY REGISTRAR \\- \ SECI'ION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To The Xl Additional State of Telangana, Rep by its Court at HYderabad. ublic Prose<:utor, High Malkajgiri D sl.

2.TheStationl.ouseofficerK.P.H.B.PoliceStation,Cyberabac,lr,4edchal a. iwo c6s to public prosecutor, High cou( for the state of Telalgana at + o'n" cC io iRt . veuxRrR RANGADAS KANURI Advocate [c PUC] 5. Two CD Coo es Hyderabad. (OUT) HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 { ORDER CRLP.No.825 of 2025 t{E SiA I { rl)i3 09 APB 2125 a t o DISPOSING OF Tttll CRL PETITION ,1ll I In