1. The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 U/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings for the offence U/s.498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in C.C.No.5295/2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Court, Guntur.

2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1 and Sri Ch.Narendra Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the husband; petitioners No.2 and 3 are in-laws of M.Sri Lekha, the daughter of the 2nd respondent; she is residing at United States of America (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.S.A.’); report was presented by the 2nd respondent to the police basing on a letter of M.Sri Lekha; the marriage of the 1st petitioner and M.Sri Lekha was solemnized on 31.03.2018 at Guntur; the parents of the bride stayed in U.S.A.; bride also stayed in U.S.A. and doing employment; the petitioner/A-1 was also doing software job in U.S.A.; subsequent to solemnization of marriage, bride and A-1 came to the house of A-2 and A-3; later they went to Tirupathi; thereafter disputes arose between wife and husband; A-1 abused his wife; he left her at Guntur and went to his native place; subsequently, A-1 and his wife went to U.S.A.; they were doing jobs at different places; they were meeting in the weekends; A-1 harassed his wife to resign the job; A-2 and A-3 went to U.S.A. and stayed with A-1 and his wife for some time; A-1 to A-3 harassed her; A-1 was harassing his wife at the instance of A-2 and A-3’ A-1 wants to beat his wife; the parents of bride advised A-1 to lead proper marital life; he did not heed them; later A-2 and A-3 left to India; the relatives of wife of A-1 visited the house of A-2 and A-3 and questioned them about the rude behavior of A-1; they did not come to the rescue of girl; instead they supported their son i.e., A-1; the girl did not file any report at U.S.A. against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 due to fear; the girl and her parents waited with a hope that the accused will change their attitude; therefore, the victim decided to file police case at her native place; hence sent a letter to the 2nd respondent; he presented a report to the police; police registered the same as case in Cr.No.387/2019 for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and investigated into the case and laid charge sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the said offence.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners would argue that even if the allegations in the report and statement of the victim and other witnesses are considered on their face as true, there is no material to attract the offence U/s.498-A IPC or U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 would amount to abuse of process in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi Vs. State of Telangana 2025 SCC Online SC 263 and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others 1992 AIR 604.

5. He would also submit that all the alleged facts would not disclose any criminal overt acts against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. The petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are not residing with the wife of A-1.  She is residing at U.S.A. No offence has been made out in India as per the allegations in the report and statement of the girl and other witnesses. Therefore, the police station at Guntur has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation and lay charge sheet.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A-1 and the girl applied for divorce in U.S.A., and they were granted divorce in case No.21 DR 1603 as per the judgment dated 09.07.2022 passed by the Court of Common Pleas Franklin Country, Ohio Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch at United States of America. Therefore, their marriage was dissolved long ago. This fact was suppressed by the 2nd respondent and his daughter i.e., wife of A-1 and launched the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners to harass the petitioners. Hence, it amounts to abuse of process.

7. The learned counsel for unofficial respondent/R-2 would submit that though divorce was granted by the Court at U.S.A. on 09.07.2022, the report pertains to the year 2019 and therefore, the decree of divorce has nothing to do with the harassment made by the petitioners. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

8. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that arose for consideration in this Criminal petition is as under:

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.5295/2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise Court, Guntur be quashed as prayed for, invoking section 482 Cr.P.C”

9. POINT:

A close scrutiny of the material placed before this Court i.e., copy of FIR, copy of charge sheet and copy of divorce decree dated 09.07.2022, would show that the marriage of A-1 and the daughter of the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 31.03.2018 at Guntur. It is an undisputed fact that the bride and bridegroom were doing jobs at U.S.A. at the time of their marriage. They were in India for few days only and later went to U.S.A. The allegations relating to the alleged harassment appears to be occurred at U.S.A. The petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are residents of India, and they are parents of the petitioner/A-1. No report was presented to the police in India at the time of alleged harassment soon after the marriage in India. No report was presented to the police at U.S.A. with regard to alleged harassment at U.S.A.

10. Admittedly, A-1 and the daughter of the 2nd respondent took divorce at U.S.A., in the year 2022. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioners, even if the allegations made in the report of the 2nd respondent to the police at Guntur are taken into consideration on their face, they do not constitute any offence U/s.498-A I.P.C. at India.

11. In the light I.P.C and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 would amount not only abuse of process, but also mis-use of criminal proceedings.

12. The inherent powers of Court U/s.482 Cr.P.C. be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. When the allegations in the report presented by the unofficial respondent to the police or the statements of the witnesses recorded U/s.161 Cr.P.C. are not constituting any prima facie case for the offence U/s.498-A IPC or U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners for the foregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and others.

13. Therefore, in the light of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offence U/sec.498-A IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offence U/s.498-A I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in C.C.No.5295/2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Court, Guntur, are quashed.

15. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.