High Court · 2025

.B-.p., pV public prosecutor, High Court For the Stale or tetangana, High Cou( Buildings, Hyderabad. 2' smt- Kalvakoranu rndilq arias qlqra_dar w/o. prithvi Rai, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Housewife, !o. Flat No. 302, Sai laxmi Apartmeriis, Saio-nigar, '-- Hyderabad, R.R. District ...Respondents/De facto Complainant Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the entire records, relating to the proceeding"s;n c.c. No. 3141 o'f 2019, on the file of the court of the V Aoditional ivetropolitin Magistrate- cum-V Additional Junior civir Judge at L.B. Nagar, cyberabad, Ranga- Reday District and quash the same. i* t"' - ."/ r.A. No:2 oF 2021 Petition uncler lSection 482 of Cr'P C prayin-g that in.the.:il"'I"r?T:t statedinthelvlerrrorand,.-otc.,na"ofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be oleased to grant interim stay of all furth.er proceedinos in C;'O No 3141 ol ,,iir.,,r'-C"r.t #t-" v Additional Metropo;itan h'la1:;istrate-Cum-V !Er'nl, Addirional Junior civil Jrd;; ;i f.e. Nugrr, cyberabad, Ranga tleddy District' including the appearance of the petitioners' pending- disposal of' the above Criminal Petition, "i?""rir=". This Petition r:oming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments oi Sri V VIJAYA RAMA RAJ, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecut':r on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent l'lo' 2' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BIE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY c M A TI N o a t2 1 ORDER This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.3141 of 2Ot9 on the file of the III Additionat Junior Civil Judge-cum-IH Additional Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Cr.No.414 of 2OI4 was registered on reference of a private complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, to Women police Station, Saroornagar.

3. In the complaint, it was alleged by the respondent No.2 that she pbrformed the marriage of her daughter, preethi Kaluvakolanu (victim), with petitioner No.1 on OS.O4.2Ol2. The respondent No.2 gave dowry, other customary gifts and spent Rs.20 lakhs for performing marriage. The petitioners 2 and 3 prayed a trick and did not allow the respondent No.2 to enquire about the job details of the petitioner No.l. It was informed to the respondent No.2 that the petitioner No.1 is well placed in USA. The petitioners _ accused wanted a girl with H1B Visa in USA to be married to the petitioner No.1. The petitioners concealed that the petitioner No.1 had many issues related to his job and Green Card in USA. 2 It is allt:ged that after marriage, the petitioner N()'l started 4. harassinE the victlm on every petty issue and it came t() lght that the petitior er i\io 1 is unfit for marital life The victim u/a:; 1'orced to fulfil sexrral desires of the petitioner No'1. who atteml)t€d to lay hands on he - physically. During their matrimonial lir'r: in USA' the petitione- No'1 humiliated the victim and all::g::d false attributlons of extra-marital life of victim with another m'3n'

5. After ir v'estigation, the police filed charge sheet' w hich was taken on flle: as CC.No.3141 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional ilrrnior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' The victim we s examined as L.W.2. It is; the, case of the petitioners that at the time 01' alliance' 6. L.W.2 (victin ) informed the petitioner No'1 that she had H1B Visa and it should l:e stamped in India and it takes about 1li c ays time' so that she can join the petitioner No'1 in USA' After the marriage wassolemniue:don05.04.2012atYadagiriguttaandreclisl.eredwith the concern(:(l Sub-Registrar Office on 07 '04'20!2' on [he same day in the midnight the petitioner No'1 left USA leavin(l L W'2 It is stated that L.\,4/.2 did not accompany the petitioner No l-dr'le to Visa stamping Te.tsons. Even after lapse of eight months, L'W 2 did not join the petitioner No.1 by citing one or the otfrer re:s('rn' It was informed to the petitioner No.1 that Visa is pending for stamping. The petitioner No.1 took initiative and sent required documents for Visa processing. L.W.2 secured Visa in March 2013 and left to USA on 17.05.2013 i.e. after one year of the marriage. By then, the petitioner No.1 was already a citizen of USA. 7 . It is submitted that when L.W.1 landed at Dallas Airport at USA. she created nuisance. Every day she continued to create one or other problem to the petitioner No.1 and finally, on 26.05.2013, she left to Michigan State, where she previously resided and studied MS. It is submitted that L.W.2 stayed with the petitioner No.1 only for ten days stating that she had no interest in marriage and did not want to lead a marital life with the petitioner No.1. It is stated that when 1.W.2 left the company of the petitioner No.1, he consulted an attorney and filed a Suit No.231_537990_13 for annulment of marriage before the 231.t Judiciar District court, Tarrant County, Texas. The suit was heard on 0g.05.2014 and a final decree of divorce was passed on 03.06.2014 annulling the marnage on mutually agreed terms and conditions without any alimony.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that concealing the fact of annulment of marriage by mutual consent by foreign Court, the respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint on 4 :.

06.05.201-4, based on which a case in Cr'No'414 of :ZC 14 was registerecj urh<:reln charge sheet has been filed arrd rellisl ered as CC.No.3141 o" 2019 for the offences under Sect'ons agEi-A' 420 1860. He submitted r:hat the and 354 li' tl- €r Indian Penal Code. divorce 'rrets obtained on mutually petitioner t,lo. L and L'W.2 in USA on 03'06'2014' which w':s much prior to the loCging of a private complaint by the resporrCont No'2' When th3 Civor-ce petition was filed by the petitio.ler No'1 in USA' as an aft.er :hought, the respondent No'2 lodged a private complaint on (16.05.2014. During investigation' the Inv€)stigation Officer was nrlt: informed about divorce and annulment :'f marriage agreed terms between the inUSA.,Asth,:maritalrelationshipbetweenthepetitionr:r'\o'1and L.W.2has;cametoanend.thequestionofprosectrtingthe petitione-s w()tlld not arise' Lea-nel counsel for the petitioners fufther subrrittt:d that lf 9. the allegatio'rs made in the complalnt and charge :;heet were genuine, the :;ame allegations would have been madtl before the Court in US.q. L.W.2 would not have agreed for annt'tlment of marriage an<l divorce by mutual consent' L'W'2 never rnade any allegation of mental and physical harassment ln USiA and the respondent trlo.2, who is the mother of L'W'2. lodged a corplaint in India when dirrorce proceedings were pending in LJSA' 5

10. Learned counsel submitted that having accepted divorce in USA, the question of prosecuting the petitioners in Indian Courts would not arise. The respondent No.2 and L.W.2 played fraud and abused the process of law by lodging a private complaint against the petitioners. For more than one year after marriage, the petitioner No.1 and 1.W.2 did not have marital life. Thereafter, as stated above, they had marital life only for a period of ten days, which is undisputed and as such, the allegation of harassment for the purpose of additionar dowry is baseress, concocted and fictitious for the purpose of falsely implicating the petitioners in this case.

11. Learned Public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have not made out any case for quashing CC.No.3141 of 2O!9. Based on the statements of witnesses, the charge sheet was filed. The divorce proceedings in USA would not have any bearing on the criminal proceedings in India. No, prima facie, case is made out by the petitioners for quashing the proceedings in CC.No.3141 of 2079

72. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public Prosecutor representing the State.

13. Though notice was sent to respondent No.2 and served, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. The petitioners filed a memo dated O5.O7 .2024 stating that they have sent notice to the I i i I 6 respondent Nr>.2 on several occasions, it was returne(l t'nserved due to insufflcient address. The petitloners sectlred lh€ correct addressed of the respondent No'2 and servec notice on the which is acknowledged by the postal-tra( king put the memo vide SR.No.61123 of 2(\22 daled responde rrt No.2, up alo n,3 uli :h t8.o7.20D-. !4. The rer:ord discloses that L'W'2 instituted FCOF' No'684 of District, 2014 before lre Family Court, L.B' Nagar, Ranga Reddy g rou nd The OP of marriage with petitioner No. 1 on th e permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000./- seeking disso Lrtio n of cruelt.v an I for was allowed on 11.09.2018 granting divorce on the grotlnt: that the marriage was not consummated and permanent alirnony of Rs.30,00,000/' was awarded to L.W.2. The judgment pass':d by the District Courl, 231't Judiclal District, Tarrant County, 'te>':as, USA' was relied upcn by 1.W.2 in the OP and marked as Ex Pl2'

15. It is tc, be noted that filing of criminal case in Ind a merely because divo-r:e petition was filed by the petitioner No' 1 - husband cannot D,3 herld to not maintainable' The private conlplaint in Cr.No.414 of 2074 was lodged by the respondent No'2 on 06.05.201-4. The final decree of divorce was passed on 0:)'06 2014 in the Dis;trl(t Court, 231st Judicial District, Tarrant Count:y, Texas, USA. by ret:ording that the marriage betweerr the pilrties has 7 become unsupportable because of discord and conflict of personalities and there are no chances of reconciliation. L.W.2 was not granted any alimony by the County Court. However, the marital estate was divided and allotted to the petitioner No.1 and L.W.2.

16. The hearing of the divorce case was held on 08.05.2014 in the District Court, 231.r Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas, USA and final decree was passed on 03.06.2014. It appears that the divorce petition was filed much before 06.05.2014 (date on which private complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2). Even when the proceedings were going on before the County Court, USA, parallely, complaint was lodged and criminal proceedings were launched by L.W.1, the mother of L.W.2. The Investigation Officer was not informed about the divorce case and annulment of marriage between the petitioner No.2 and L.W.2 before the County Court, USA. There is no reference of divorce case in the complaint dated 06.05.2014. 77 ' Thus, in the opinion of this court, the non-discrosure of divorce case in USA and no contest by L.W.2 was a crucial factor, which if disclosed in the private complaint, would have had a bearing on the investigation and finar report in cc.No.3141 of 2019. In the entire contents of the charge sheet, nowhere it was stated I \ .t ! a 8 that divorce (lilse was filed and divorce was I ranted in USA' The charqe sh,l,3t was filed on 28 '06 '20L4 and divorce was granted muchbefo.e:n03.06.2014.Thependencyofdivorcec,aseand thereafter, g'errting of decree of divorce should have been informed to the Investig)ation Officer' The circumstances clearly intlit::ate that while L.W.2 appeared in USA, the respondent No'2 (mother of L.W.2) flled . private complaint without disclosing the f ling and pendency cf tlivorce case and thereafter' grant or'divo-ce in USA' Thus, continua'rce of prosecution in CC'No'3141 oi 2019r is in gross abuse of pro(less of law and ends of justice would be nret if the proceedinlls rr CC.No.3141 of 2019 are quashed and they are according lY qu ashed. The crlnlinal petition is allowed' The miscellaneous petitions pending, if ary, shall stand closed' There shall be no cr'ler as to SD7- N SRi HARI DE,PIJTY REGISTRAR The Judqmerrt daled zb-U Note: This order s Antended as per t911:.'d"'dated 23-04-2025 il ,;,t;.; or zozs n f'+f\"C-'gr%1:t"?'*l-".*" nur 1 or 2021 io p".#",;;"N,i:.; ::,1 l 1n"" lil:i":: 'l:"::"31;,","li'Jl 1"3I is modified as 'lll Metropolitan Ma(lislrr,le^cum i;i"'oi.iii"i :'l;j?"?t l',,'ffi i,',i"'i, il jiu" i I u o i ci a t tvl a s i s: ra t e ffi ft i: of First class, R.anga Reooy"Jitt'ilt' ut L B Nagai' as per court order. i."u" arunO"o ordc r accordinglY' "' " //TRuE coPY// ^i \ I I I Add ition a r J unior Civil Judge-cum-l I l-Additiorta 'iir3i;i,;;; 'nalrga Reddv Diitrict at L B Nasar To, I SD/. N SRI HARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I Jud r;ierl Magistrate of 1l

2. .7

5. tuP ,f,jf:.;:"";1irffi#ii#mHfl w lifi#H,,"y,"i,ff[::::;.j.",",,. / i l .r1:'# HIGH COURT DATED: 2510312025 z?, /o+ Izo>5 \ \ A,MENDED ORDER CRLP.No.9881 of 2021 ...1 la I r" e)I 'li \ i r,+ \,t tF- s 14f6 ) + ilA\ T6 () ),j!.{' - .]r..- sLr!1 ALLOWING HE CRIMINAL PETITION i I I f> ,n<eul W-<., -ra\t*-