Allowed

Sudhir Ponnala v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Sept 2022CRLP/7299/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that since the alleged offences occurred entirely in the USA, previous Central Government sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. Additionally, the victim's settlement indicated abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2018 against petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 are quashed and miscellaneous petitions pending are closed.

Sudhir Ponnala Vs the State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

IMONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEI/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESEN'I

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7299 0F 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sudhir Ponnala, Retired Employee, F|/o. Flat No.302, Harsha Nilaya, Street^No.7, West Marredpally, Secunderabad-26

¶8

Smt. VUayalakshmi Ponnala, Rl/o. Flat No.302, Harsha Nilaya, Street No.7^West Marredpally, Secunderabad-26

¶9

Lalit Ponnah, R/o.¹ 1 , Winler Avenue, Apt.1 Staten lsland, New^{York-10301 and} Permanent Rl/o. Flat No.302, Harsha Nilaya, West Marredpally,^{Secunderabad-26.} Rep. by his G.P.A. holder Sudhir Ponnala, S/o. P.Hanumanth Rao, aged 67^years. occ.Retired Employee, Rl,to. Flat No.302, Harsha Nilaya, West^Marredpally, Secunderabad-26

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOs. 1 TO 3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangaqna, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Cou(^{of Judicature at} Hyderabad.

¶13

Ravula Sudarshanam, F/o. Flat No.304/3-1 1-108, SBK Enclave, Yamuna Block, Ganeshnagar, Ramanthapur,Uppal, R.R.District.

¶14

Smt. Ravula Rukmini Devi,, Rl/o. Flat No.304/3-'1^{1- 108,SBK Enclave, YamunaBlock,} Ganeshnagar, Ramanthapur,Uppal, R.R.District.

¶15

Smt. Krishna Chaitanya, D/o. Mr.Sudharshanam Ravula, Ryo.^{Flat No.304/3-11-1 08,} SBK Enclave, Yamuna Block, Ganeshnagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal,R.R.Diskict. Presently residing at 46 Montgomery Ave, Apt ,18, Staten lsland, New York, YF 10301 Rep. by General Power of Aftorney Holder Ravula Sudashanam.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS

¶17

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 QUASH the^proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2018, on the file of lll^{Metropolitan Magistrate} Court at L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} STAY all further^proceedings, including arrest and^personal appearance of lhe

¶20

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.38 of 2018,^{on the file of the lll Metropolitan} Magistrate Court at L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds} of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri PRABHAKARSRIPADA,} Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public^{Prosecutor (TG),on behalf of the Respondent} No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent^{Nos 2 to 4}

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7299 of 2O18

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash C.C.No.38 of 2O18 on the Iile of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar the cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Sections 498-A, 1O9, 120-E} read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶27

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as hereunder:

¶28

a) Petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of petitioner No.3-accused No.3, who is the husband of respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have liled a private complaint before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar alleging tlat one Sripathi Rajeshwara Rao brought a marriage alliance for respondent No.4, who is working in Infosys in Virginia USA and that respondent Nos.2 to 4, who were residing in New York are also looking for marriage alliances.

¶29

¶30

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 - accused Nos. I and 2 came to the house of respondent Nos.2 to 4 many a times ald linalized the marriage and informed their son to get married. At the time of marriage accused Nos. 1 ald 2 demanded Rs.l crore as dowry. Accused No.3 could not get leave, as such the marriage was decided to be performed in New York and accordingly the marriage between respondent No.4 and petitioner No.3 was performed on 31 .O7.2014.

¶31

b) After marriage petitioner No.3-accused No.3 started demanding the dowry but respondent No.4 refused to give that amount as she was contributing towards rent and household expenses. Petitioner No.3-accused No.3 started threatening respondent No.4 that he will not live with her and started having affairs with different ladies viz., accused No.4 and for most of the weekends accused No.3 used to live with those ladies. Accused No.3 filed no-fault divorce petition before New York Court vide Index No.O50-888-15 and alleged that accused No.3 sought divorce from respondent No.4 on the ground of irretrievable broke down between them. When notice has come from the Court, respondent No.4 intended to commit suicide and telephoned to her parents, who consoled her and gave courage and support to her to withstand and hght for^justice.

¶32

)

¶33

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 contacted petitioner Nos.l to 3- accused Nos. 1 to 3 and accused but petitioner Nos.l and 2 supported petitioner No.3 and stated that whatever amount agreed shall be immediately be given so that divorce petition will be withdrawn or else petitioner No.3-accused No.3 would marriage another lady. Petitioner No.3- accused No.3 was giving offers of 20000 US dollars as compensation to the respondent No.4, who refused for the said offer for divorce.

¶34

c) Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar has forwarded the private complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Uppal Police Station, who in turn have registered the same as Crime No.773 of 2016 on 18. 10.2016 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 109, 12O-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners have filed CRLP No.6575 of 2Ol7 before this Court for quashing Crime No.773 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on O2.O8.2OL7 with a direction to the investigating officer to investigate but not to arrest the petitioners unless report of the committee on its constitution is received, however that does not prevent the securing for interrogation as part of investigation. The Police have completed entire investigation and filed charge

¶35

¶36

sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the hle of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-accused Nos. I to 3 have hled the present criminal petition on the following grounds:

¶37

i) The allegations are utterly false and baseless as there is no reference to this aliegation in the case vide Index No.05O888-15 filed before the New York State Supreme Court at the Courthouse, Richmond County.

¶38

ii) Respondent No.3 having received 9OOO US dollars towards full and final settlement of all her claims against the petitioner No.3 cannot continue the criminal proceedings as she is estopped from doing so.

¶39

ii4 The investigating officer has recorded the statements of the parents of the victim on 18.06.2016 and the statement of the alleged victim on 12.L2.2016 i.e. after the pronouncement of the^judgment in US Court on 2O.10.2O16. The investigating officer did not take into account the detailed representation dated i 8.05.2O 17 given by the petitioners to the notice under Section 4 I (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated ll.O5.2ol7 given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Uppal Police

¶40

¶41

Station. The Investigating officer did not take^into account the order dated 20.L0.2016 delivered by the New York State Supreme Court. The investigating officer failed to see that no allegations of cruelty or demand or demand for dowry were made before the New York Court.

¶42

iv) The petitioners neither demanded Rs. 1 crore nor the said amount was given.

¶43

v) The petitioner No.l never left India at any point of time as he does not have a passport and thus, he never lived even for one day with the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 in USA. The petitioner No.2 went to USA only few days and spent hardly three days with petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 in USA. Therefore, the allegations of harassment are utterly baseless and there was no harassment to the respondent No.3 much less harassment forcing her to contemplate suicide.

¶44

vi) The offences alleged are said to have taken place in USA. In respect of offences which are alleged to have taken place outside India, no action can be initiated without permission of the Central Government as per Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶45

¶46

vii) The complaint filed by the respondents is only a ploy and device to harass the petitioners and extract money from them. The malalide intention of the respondents can be gathered by the fact that they have even included the name of Ms.Sindhura, who has married the petitioner No.3 on 26.12.2016 and is no way connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. Subsequently, the name of Ms. Sindhura was deleted in the charge sheet.

¶47

Now the point for determination is:

¶48

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.l to 3 in C.C.No.38 of 2018 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Naga-r, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶49

Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶50

On going through the contents of charge sheet, admittedly the marriage between the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.4 was performed on 3i.07.2O14 in New York. According to the de-facto complainants one Sripathi Rajeshwara Rao has brought an alliance when he came to knowAhat the petitioners

¶51

¶52

wee also looking up for a prospering bride. The petitioner No.3 and accused No.3 are software engineers working in USA. Their marriage was hxed and the petitioners have demanded Rs. 1 crore as dowry. However, the parents of respondent No.4 have informed them that whatever earnings of respondent No.4 wouid be with the petitioners and she would pay the same subsequent to the marriage. It is submitted that after marriage was solemnized in USA, both of them started their matrimonial life and after some time when third petitioner has demanded to pay the money, the respondent No.4 stated to have refused to pay money to the third petitioner stating that she has been maintaining the house and spending money for other requirements. On such refusal by respondent No.4, the third petitioner stated to have started harassing respondent No.4 physically and mentally and also informed her that he would marry other lady, who is capable of giving divorce. In addition to that the third petitioner started developing intimacy with other ladies viz., inilially with Deepa and subsequently third petitioner developed love affair with Sindhura and that he would marry her. As the dispute further developed, the third petitioner has filed no-fault divorce petition before New York Court vide Index No.O5O-888-15 and ultimately the same was

¶53

¶54

also granted. The respondent No.4 was also awarded 9000 US Dollars as compensation / permanent alimony.

¶55

7 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan

¶56

Lal and othersl, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of crimina-l case. The guidelines are:

¶57

"(a) uhere the allegations made in the Firsf Infonnation Report or the complaint, euen if theA are taken dt their face ualue and accepted in their entiretA do not pima facie constitute ang offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶58

(b) uthere the allegations in the First Infonnation Report and other mateials, if ang, accompanging the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifuing an inuestigation bg police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the puruiew of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶59

(c) uhere the uncontrouerted allegations made in tLe FIR or 'complaint and *E euidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of ang offence and make out a co-se ogainst the accused;

¶60

(d) uhere the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizoble offence but constitute onlg a non-cognizable offence, no inuestigation i"s pennitted bg a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of tlrc Code;

¶61

(e) uhere the allegations mode in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on the basis of uhich no pntdent. person can euer reach a

¶62

'^1992AIR604

¶63

¶64

just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the acarced;

¶65

(n uhere there is an express legal bar engrafted in ang of th-e prouisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under u.thich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution ond continuance of the proceedings and/ or u.there there b a specific prouision in the Code or the concemed Act, prouiding efficacious redress for the grieuance of tlrc aggieued partg;

¶66

@)^{uhere acriminal proceeding ismanifestly} attended uLith mola fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciouslg instituted uith an ulteior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the acalsed and wtth a uieu.t to spite him due to priuate and personal grudge."

¶67

As per the ratio laid down in the above said authority, it is to be examined whether case on hand, falls in any one of the categories mentioned above.

¶68

Right from the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 until marriage was dissolved, all the incidents allegedly happened in USA. None of the allegations leveled against the petitioners admittedly occurred in India. In fact, it is not the case of tJle respondents that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 l;,ave harassed respondent No.4 in India. The parents of accused No.l were communicating with their son only through mobile. In Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anotherz the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶69

'z(2019)^{l5 SupremcCou(Cases357}

¶70

¶71

"24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 49BA and Section 3/ 4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for offence under Section 49BA and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sueeping. No specific incident dates or detoils of anA incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint hauing been filed after proceeding for diuorce utas initiated bg Nagan CLnpra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participoted and diuorce was ultimatelg granted. A feu months after filing of the diuorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the alLegations as noticed aboue. The sequence of the euents and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that tLre complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/ 4 of D.P. Act haue been fiIed as counter blast to diuorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan bg Nagan CLnpra.

¶72

There being no specific allegation regarding anA one of tLe applicants except common general. allegation against eueryone i.e. "theg started harassing tle doughter of the applicant demanding additional doutry of one crore" and the fact that all relatiues of the husband, namelA, father, mother, brother, mother's sister and husband of mother's sister ttaue been roped in clearlg ittdicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wos filed utith a uieu.t to hc'rass the applicants. Further, pnor to filing of the application under Section

¶73

¶74

156(3) Cr.P.C. there u.tas no complaint at anA point of ttme bg the girl or ler father making allegation of demond of ang dou.try by ang one of the applicants. Wlen both Nagan Chopra and Vanshika started liuing separatelg since Nouember, 2013, had tLrere been ang doury demand or harossment tLe girl uould haue giuen complaint to Police or any other authoritg. htrtte1 in tLrc diuorce proceedings at Michigan, U.S.A., parties haue agreed for diuiding tleir properties including gifts giuen at marriage but no amplaint utas made in tLase proceedings regarding harassment bg her tusband or his familg members. The judgment of the diuorce contains follouing clauses regarding "PropertA Settlement and Prouision in Lieu of Dower':

¶75

TtLe aboue^judgment in diuorce proceedings indicates that Nayan Chopra and Vanshika haue settled all issues betu.teen them including diuision of properties at tLte time when diuorce proeedings uere in progress at Michigan and both the porties uere not in India, th.e mmplaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had been filed making allegation under Section 49BA of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act onlg to harass and put . pressure on the opplicants."

¶76

Therefore, considering all the facts narrated by the qespondents, it is clear that entire acts of accused in respect of

¶77

¶78

alleged offence took place only in USA. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as under:

¶79

" 188. Offence comnitted outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-

¶80

(o) by a cirizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided thal, notwithstanding anything in any of tlrc preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except wilh the previous sonction of the Central Governmenl. "

¶81

il. As per the above said proviso, since the offence alleged against the petitioners took place in USA, the procedure contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed. In the case on hand, the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Central Government has not granted any permission for prosecution of the petitioners. In Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 through Principal Secretarli and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶82

<br>

¶83

'^{(ZOt t ) g Suprcmc CourtCases 527}

¶84

¶85

"Accordinglg, upto the stage of toking cognizance, no preuious sanction would be required from the Central Gouernment in tenns of the prouiso to Section 788 Cr.P.C. Houeuer, the tial cannot proceed begond the agnizance stage uithout the preuious sanction of tle Central Gouernment. The Magistrate i.s, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences hauing been committed in India and to complete the tial and pass^judgment therein, uithout being inhibited bg the other alleged offences for which sanction u.tould be required."

¶86

It is also not clear as to whether section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed if the offence is committed by Indian citizens outside India. It is not clear as to whether the third petitioner is citizen of India or USA. In any case, if the Indian citizen has committed offence in USA, section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed and in case if the third petitioner is citizen of USA and the offence is committed by him is in USA, he cannot be found guilty even if permission is given under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶87

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Respondent No.4 having received 9OOO US dollars towards full and final settlement of all her claims

¶88

¶89

against the petitioner No.3 cannot continue the criminal proceedings as she is estopped from doing so and in support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon an authority in Mohd.Shamim and others v. Nahind

¶90

Begum (SMT) and another4, rvherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶91

''This Courl in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kurnar Agrawal & Ors. [2004 (8) Supreme 525], itt almost d similar situotion has quashed a crintinal proceeding against the husband, stating :

¶92

"I'herefore, we are of the ttpinion that the appellant having rcceived the relief she v,dnted vrithout contesl on the basis of the tarnts of'the contpromise, we cannot now accept the argument of lhe leurned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct o/ the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from x,hich lhis appeal orises was filed by the wife only lo harass the respondenls.

¶93

,9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of lhe appellant, it tuould be an abuse of the process ofthe courl if lhe criminal proceedings from^y,hich this appeal arises is allowed to continue"

¶94

In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the crintinal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant No.l, however, would be entttled to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. lYe, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article I 42 of the Constitution of India direct thdt the impugned judgment be set aside. The First Informotion Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedenl.^"

¶95

Considering the above facts and circumstances and in

¶96

view of the principle laid down in the above citations, viewing

¶97

n (2005) 3 Supremc C"Lrn Cases 302

¶98

¶99

¶100

from any angle either on facts or on law, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued in C.C.No.38 of 2O18 on the hle of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

¶101

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2O18 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar against the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby quashed.

¶102

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,

¶103

shall stand closed.

¶104

SD/.G.SIREE6H A ASSISTANT REGISTRA R / /ITRUE COPY/i tr; SECTION OFFICER

¶105

¶106

To,

¶107