HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9620 of 2009 Date: October 01, 2010 Between: Nutakki Venkata Kishore … Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P., Through WPS CCS, rep. by P.P. High Court, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9620 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A-1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 323, 406, 506/34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.322 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. There is no dispute about marriage between the petitioner/A-1 and the second respondent/de facto complainant on 19.4.2008. It is alleged that at the time of engagement, A-2 to A-4 who are parents and sister of A-1 demanded dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs, gold ornaments, silver articles and ‘aadapaduchu katnam’ whose total value was Rs.25.00 lakhs, for which parents of the second respondent agreed and that at the time of marriage, father of the second respondent arranged dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs in cash, gold ornaments, silver articles and ‘aadapaduchu katnam’ all worth Rs.15.00 lakhs as demanded by A-2 to A-4. After marriage, the second respondent joined A-1 to A-4. 3. It is alleged that A-2 to A-4 ill-treated maternal uncle of the second respondent who accompanied her to their house stating that dowry given was not sufficient and that they expected dowry of Rs.25.00 crores, luxurious car and that the second respondent was not of fair complexion. It is alleged that on 24.4.2009 there was birthday of A-4’s daughter and that A-1 to A-3 asked parents of the second respondent to attend the birthday function to bring expensive gift, but they did not attend and that A-2 and A-3 became angry and A-1 scolded the second respondent on that issue and informed the second respondent that her parents would not be allowed into their house unless they pay the demanded dowry. It is alleged that in first week of May 2008 A-1 and the second respondent visited house of her parents at Hyderabad and that A-1 insisted the second respondent and her parents for payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs and threatened that he would not take the second respondent to USA with him; and that thereupon parents of the second respondent gave Rs.5.00 lakhs assuring A-1 that they would pay some more amount if their financial condition improved. It is alleged that A-1 at the instigation of A-2 to A-4 harassed the second respondent physically and mentally and threatened her to call her parents to pay additional dowry and that he used to beat and abuse the second respondent in drunken state for additional dowry. It is further alleged that on the night of 27.7.2009 A-1 physically abused the second respondent who became ill and that A-1 contacted the second respondent’s mother and asked her to take the second respondent to Hyderabad from USA and that A-1 called the ambulance only when the second respondent’s mother assured him that medical expenses would be paid by them. 4. It is further alleged that A-1 continued harassment of the second respondent for want of additional dowry in USA and that on 02.11.2008 A-1 became angry on the second respondent and her parents for not meeting his additional dowry demand and abused them in un-parliamentary words and that A-1 grabbed the second respondent by clothing, pulled her out of bed to the living room and hit her with a glass on her face due to which she received bleeding injuries as her lip was cut and tooth was broken and that the second respondent’ sister and brother-in-law who are in USA rescued the second respondent from A-1. It is further alleged that A-1 began charging the second respondent with having illicit intimacy with her brother-in-law. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in so far as the incidents which took place at USA are concerned, the US authorities have sent A-1 for anger management and that Riverdale Police Department of USA launched criminal prosecution against A-1. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by the second respondent’s counsel that no criminal case was filed against A-1 in USA and that only a case for domestic violence was filed against A-1/petitioner and that he was kept under observation for a certain period. 7. Effect of proceedings in USA against A-1 cannot have any bearing on the incidents which took place in India. Because of the proceedings taken by US Police, A-1 cannot absolve himself from criminal liability for the alleged acts, which took place in India prior to A-1 and the second respondent going into USA. Having regard to the proceedings in USA, it is open to the lower court to frame appropriate charges against A-1 depending on effect of the proceedings in USA. A-1 is at liberty to urge this ground relating to proceedings in USA at the time of framing of charges by the lower court. Having regard to specific averments made in the charge sheet relating to offences which took place in India under Sections 498 (A), 406, 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this Court does not find any reason to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in this petition. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: October 01, 2010. BSB