THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.2168 of 2009 17th March, 2010 Between :- K. Ravi Kiran .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.2168 of 2009 ORDER:- Heard the Counsel. 2. Sri Srinivas Polavarapu had taken this Court through the contents of the specific grounds raised in the Criminal Petition and also specifically pointed out that the incidents specified as against A.1 and also A.2 to A.4 being almost common, when as against A.2 to A.4 the police had chosen not to prosecute, the petitioner-A.1 also stands on the same footing and hence the proceedings are to be quashed. The Counsel also would further submit that even otherwise, the allegations are vague and no specific clear allegations are there and further since the parties are divorced themselves, no useful purpose would be served in further proceeding with the prosecution. The learned Counsel strongly relied on SUNDAR BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU[1]. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing R.1 would maintain that it is no doubt true that as against A.2 to A.4 since no specific grounds or incidents are there, their names had been deleted, but however in the light of the specific allegations made as the petitioner, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience). 4. Sri Raghuveera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing R.2 would maintain that even at present, the 2nd respondent-complainant is interested in further prosecuting the matter. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the specific allegations made in this regard in the charge-sheet and would maintain that the mere fact that the names of A.2 to A.4 had been deleted that by itself cannot be a ground. The Counsel also would further submit that the decision cited by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case. 5. The relevant portions of the charge-sheet reads as hereunder:- “During the course of investigation the L.W.5 recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3 in detail. As per the statements of the witnesses and on enquiry it is revealed that the L.W.1 and A.1 are legally wedded wife and husband as their marriage was performed on 23-11-2001 at Juluri Veereshalingam Function Hall, Secunderabad. At the time of marriage, L.Ws.2 and 3 gave 30 tolas of gold jewellery worth Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.25,000/- towards cloths and jewellary for A.1, Rs.15,000/- to each A.2 to A.4 as per their demand, apart from L.Ws. 2 and 3 presented cloths worth Rs.10,000/-. On the same day the L.W.1 joined with A.1 at her inlaws house situated at Lothukunta, Hyderabad, but A.1 to A.4 were unhappy and they used to commented that they were not satisfied with the given poor quality of gold jewelry and also dresses at the time of marriage by the L.Ws. 2 and 3 and on the other side A.2 to A.4 demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from L.Ws.2 and 3. On 31-12-2001 the L.W.1 and A.1 left for USA, where A.1 harassed L.W.1 mentally,physically for the purpose of dowry. On 26-3-2003 the L.W.1 blessed two female children (twins) at that time A.3 visited USA and stayed 1 ½ months there and return back to India (Hyderabad). On 31-5-2003 the L.W.1 and A.1 came to India (Hyderabad) and attended tmarriage of A.4 on 8-6-2003. Even during that period also the L.W.1 was harassed by A.1 to A.3 by not providing proper facilities and food and even they have not allowed the L.Ws.2 and 3 to their residence. On 11-6-2003 the A.1 left for USA, as he has to join his job at USA. After that the L.W.1 stayed some days at her in-laws house and stayed some days at her parents house (L.Ws.2 & 3) on 23-8-2003 the L.W.1 also went to USA by leaving her two daughters (twins) at L.Ws. 2 and 3 residence, as A.2 & A.3 refused to take care of her kids. Due to ill-treatment of A.1 to A.3, the L.W.1 came back to India in the month of March, 2001. Therefore, the A.1 harassed the L.W.1 mentally, physically for the purpose of dowry in USA and as well as at Hyderabad. The marriage between L.W.1 and A.1 was also broken by a decree at USA and awarded maintenance to their children on 6-9- 2005, but there are no specific grounds or incidents against A.2 to A.4 that they have harassed the L.W.1 mentally, physically for the purpose of dowry. Hence, their names were eliminated from the charge-sheet.” 6. In Sundar Babu’s case (referred 1 supra) it was held that the Section does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. In envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. – Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the Section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any expression provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quandolex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id since quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). – Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.” 7. The Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.482/2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on the ground that the said proceedings are vitiated by abuse of process of law. The G.P.A. holder of the petitioner is swearing to the affidavit. It is stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent took place on 23-11-2001 in Secunderabad as per the customs and rituals of Hindu Law without any dowry. It is further stated that the close fr5iends of the petitioner herein as well as the 2nd respondent are the witnesses. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent left to U.S.A. Subsequently, twins were born to parties on 26-3-2003 at U.S.A. On 31-5-2003 petitioner and the 2nd respondent came to India to attend the marriage of the sister of the petitioner herein which took place on 8- 6-2003. After the marriage of the petitioner’s sister is over, the petitioner left to U.S.A. on 11-6-2003 by leaving the 2nd respondent and children in the parents house of respondent No.2. 8. Further it is stated that the 2nd respondent also left to U.S.A. on 23-8-2003 by leaving the two children in her parents house. The 2nd respondent quarreled wt petitioner and left to India in the month of February, 2004 without the consent and informing the petitioner. The parents of the petitioner are in India only right from April, 2003 and are living separately at Secunderabad and the question of they harassing the 2nd respondent who is in States after 23-8-2003 by the parents of the petitioner does not arise at all and such a statement ex facie is a false and created story of the 2nd respondent. 9. It is also stated that at the instance of the parents of the 2nd respondent, she gave a complaint to the Police on 19-5-2004 against the petitioner, his parents and sister with all false and untenable allegations. The said complaint was registered as crime No.316/2004 in Women P.S., CCS, D.D., Hyderabad. The petitioner at that point of time is working in U.S.A. Even the allegations made in the complaint to be taken as correct, no cause of action arose at Hyderabad as the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are staying in U.S.A. The 2nd respondent did not give any complaint to the police in U.S.A. Only when disputes arose between the parties and with a view to harass the petitioner and his parents as well as sister, she filed a false complaint in Hyderabad, as if all the things said to have occurred at Hyderabad. The police recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of the 2nd respondent as L.W.1 and statement of her father as LW.2 and recorded the statement of her mother as LW.3 who are all interested witnesses. The statements of the witnesses are conflicting to each other and do not disclose even reasonable cause of action. After filing the complaint, she also left to U.S.A. in August, 2004 itself without informing the petitioner herein and living separately from the petitioner permanently and secured a job and now staying along with her parents at U.S.A. The parents of the 2nd respondent also secured jobs at U.S.A. and settled therein permanently. 10. Further it is averred that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent got their marriage dissolved by a final Decree of Divorce passed by the District Court, Collin County, Texas by an order dt.6-9-2005 and as per the orders, he is paying maintenance amount to his children. For the last 3 ½ years the parties are living separately and she has not turned up even for once before the criminal Court at Hyderabad even though she visited India. For whatever reason by virtue of the Decree of Divorce the parties patched up their differences which implies of dropping the pending cases. The District Court, Collin Country, Texas also ordered that the petitioner is having visiting rights and secured children for few days in every month. The petitioner is contributing Education Fund, Health Care Fund etc., to the children regularly as ordered in Decree of Divorce. The police casually said to have conducted investigation and filed a charge-sheet on 16-5-2007 in ccno.482/2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad only against the petitioner by dropping the case against his parents and sister. In the complaint she gave false address of the petitioner and in fact he had not received any summons and notices either from the police or from the Court. 11. Further it is also stated that NBW was said to have been ordered and the petitioner herein also unaware about the said fact. Previously, the petitioner along with his parents and sister filed criminal petition No.2395/2006 to quash the F.I.R. No.316/04. However the same was withdrawn on 10-10-2006 with a liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. After withdrawal of the same, charge- sheet was filed against the petitioner only. The charge-sheet also does not made out the necessary ingredients of any offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and no cause of action arose in India and the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is also stated that the petitioner came to know about NBW in December, 2008 when he visited India and surrendered before the Court and obtained bail on uncertain conditions and deposited Rs.5,00,000/- as security which is opposed to law. 12. It is further stated that now the matter was posted in July, 2009 for commencing evidence. The continuation of the criminal proceedings even after the divorce was granted in the year 2005 is clearly an abuse of process of law and unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. More over now the parties have settled in U.S.A. and doing their own jobs. The 2nd is not even attending the Court for the last two years even after the charge-sheet was filed and she is no more interested. Only to harass the petitioner, she is not withdrawing or compromising the case which is permissible in law. Apart from the entire cause of action as per the averments in the charge-sheet reveals that it was occurred in U.S.A. and the Courts at Hyderabad has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case and some of the allegations are only made to confer the jurisdiction in Hyderabad Court. 13. It is also averred that the entire reading of the complaint, charge- sheet and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the interested witnesses show that there are no ingredients of offence under Section 498-A IPC. There is no single allegation in the charge-sheet against the petitioner that he demanded dowry and harassed the 2nd respondent to bring more dowry. All the allegations in the complaint are vague and against all the accused. When the charge-sheet drops, the allegations against the parents and sister of the petitioner on the ground that there was no specific grounds or incidents against A.2 to A.4 that they have harassed LW.1 mentally and physically for the purpose of dowry, the same theory or reasons will apply to the petitioner also. Once the parties obtained Divorce, the previous proceedings arising of marriage relationship also ceases and continuation of the proceedings in ccno.482/07 is an abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. The petitioner came to Hyderabad and secured the bail by giving surety. While doing the aforesaid procedure, the petitioner was forced to deposit his passport and when the petitioner sought return of passport, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which is unwarranted in the eye of law. The action of the Court is nothing but deprivation of livelihood at U.S.A. The petitioner was compelled to attend the hearing of the case on every date and he has to come all the way from U.S.A. by incurring huge expenditure and to undergo suffering. 14. It is no doubt true that in the charge-sheet it had been specifically mentioned that for want of material, the names of A.2 to A.4 are being deleted, but however in the light of specific allegations made in the charge-sheet referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to urge all these grounds at the appropriate stage. 15. Subject to the above observation, the criminal petition shall stand dismissed. ______________________ Justice P.S. Narayana 17th March, 2010 smr [1] 2009 (2) ALT (Criminal.) 359 (Supreme Court)