Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 564 (AP)

Chanumolu Vinoz v. State, Rep. By The P. P.

2020-09-04

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in D.V.C. No.35 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District, filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the said proceedings. 2. The 1st petitioner is the husband, while petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of the 1st petitioner. The marriage alliance talks between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent took place on 20.12.2007 in the presence of elders and later, the marriage was performed at Sri Subramanya Swamy Kalyana Mandapam, Skandagiri Temple, Secunderabad, on 11.2.2008. It is stated that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in cash was given to the petitioners towards dowry amount, besides presenting about 60 sovereign of gold ornaments, apart from a diamond set, consisting of (i) necklace, (ii) ear rings, (iii) finger-ring and (iv) bangle worth about Rs.15,00,000/-. It is further stated that when the couple was leaving to U.S.A., an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, which amounts to 3500 dollars, was also presented by the parents of the 2nd respondent. It is averred that when petitioners 2 and 3 insisted and demanded the 2nd respondent to pay additional dowry, the parents of the 2nd respondent with great difficulty sent an amount of 6000 dollars in August, 2008. 3. The averments in the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 further show that, after the marriage, the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar at Malkajgiri and later, a small function was held as per the marriage customs. It is said that, both of them lived together at Eluru and thereafter, went to Hyderabad in order to go to Chicago. It is said that, within few days after the marriage, both of them left to U.S.A. The 1st petitioner was employed as the President of IndSoft Corporation and also the President of Vista Vision Technologies at Chicago. Both of them lived happily in Chicago and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 24.1.2009. It is said that, in the month of July, 2009, the 3rd petitioner herein went to U.S. to see the newly born child. Since then, disputes arose due to ill-advices of the 3rd petitioner to the 1st petitioner. Both of them lived happily in Chicago and out of wedlock, they were blessed with a female child on 24.1.2009. It is said that, in the month of July, 2009, the 3rd petitioner herein went to U.S. to see the newly born child. Since then, disputes arose due to ill-advices of the 3rd petitioner to the 1st petitioner. It is further stated that, the demand for additional dowry amount from the parents of the 2nd respondent started their and basing on the ill-advices of the 3rd petitioner, the 1st petitioner used to abuse the 2nd respondent in unparliamentary language, apart from picking up quarrels on petty issues. It is said that, the 3rd petitioner went to the extent of separating both of them and made them live in separate rooms. While things stood thus, the 1st petitioner got addicted to bad vices and developed psychological problems like, paranoia, sadism, and psychosis. It is said that, the 1st petitioner abruptly opened the joint safety locker in the bank and snatched away some of the gold ornaments of the 2nd respondent, which were presented by her parents to her at the time of the marriage. The averments in the application also show that some of the documents and passport belonging to the baby were missing. Unable to bear the harassment, the 2nd respondent came down to India and started living with her parents and their efforts to settle the matrimonial dispute proved futile and as such, she lodged a report before the Eluru Police Station, which came to be registered as a case in crime No.204 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. In view of the above, the present application came to be filed seeking the reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DVC Act. Challenging the initiation of proceedings, the present application is filed seeking quashing of the same. 4. Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, prior to filing of this petition, the 1st petitioner herein filed an application for divorce before the Court in U.S. and after obtaining divorce and all the benefits, including monetary benefits to her satisfaction, came down to India and initiated criminal prosecution and also the present case. 4. Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, prior to filing of this petition, the 1st petitioner herein filed an application for divorce before the Court in U.S. and after obtaining divorce and all the benefits, including monetary benefits to her satisfaction, came down to India and initiated criminal prosecution and also the present case. He further pleads that, considering the material available on record, the learned Judge of this Court quashed the criminal proceedings and since the allegations in the said case are in pari materia with the allegations made herein, these proceedings also should go. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in support of his plea. 5. Though notices were initially sent to the house where her parents stay, but the same were returned on the ground that there are no instructions to receive the said notice. Subsequently, notices were also sent to her address in U.S.A., but, the same was returned with an endorsement “return to sender, undeliverable as addressed, unable to forward”. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the 2nd respondent herein is aware about the proceedings, but, she is not interested in contesting the matter, as she is now married and settled. 6. Having regard to the above, the question now is, Whether the averments in the application filed do make out a case for the reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act? 7. Before proceeding further it is to be noted here that, allegations made in the report given to the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, which lead to registration of a case in crime No.204 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, are almost identical to the averments made in the application filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Dealing with the allegations made, a learned Single Judge of the combined High Court, in Criminal Petition No.627 of 2011, vide order dated 8.12.2017, allowed the application and quashed the investigation of the said crime. The learned Judge relied upon the documents which showed dissolution of the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent on 29.9.2011 by the court of Illinois, USA. In fact, even in the aid case, the notice sent to the 2nd respondent was returned as unclaimed. The learned Judge relied upon the documents which showed dissolution of the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent on 29.9.2011 by the court of Illinois, USA. In fact, even in the aid case, the notice sent to the 2nd respondent was returned as unclaimed. Having regard to the contents of the order passed by Circuit Court of 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois, USA, more particularly, the terms and conditions for dissolving the marriage in the form of marital settlement, the learned Judge held that, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings in the form of investigation and accordingly, quashed the proceedings. 8. A perusal of the material placed before the Court would show that, the 1st petitioner herein filed an application for dissolution of marriage in 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois, USA. A counter came to be filed in the said application. After referring to the contents and the rival contents and taking into consideration the material available on record, the Court in U.S.A. observed that, irreconcilable differences have caused an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage; that parties’ efforts to reconcile failed and future attempts at reconciliation would be impracticable and not in the best interests of the family. In the said judgment, it was clearly observed that, the judgment for dissolution of marriage is entered on behalf of the parties herein and the bonds of matrimony between the plaintiff and the defendant is dissolved. The terms and conditions for dissolving the marriage in the form of Marital Settlement Agreement is also enclosed to the additional material papers, which discloses that, the maintenance, the child custody and the rights and interests between the parties after the dissolution of the marriage, have already been decided. In fact, a reading of the same would show that, the Court directed the 1st petitioner to return all the gold in the approximate amount of $35,000.00 taken from the safe deposit box and return all the cash an amount of $5,000.00 taken from the safe located in the residence. The 1st petitioner was directed to pay $1,200.00 per month to the child and $1,700.00 per month to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance. The 2nd respondent is estopped from further claiming the reliefs prayed in the application. The 1st petitioner was directed to pay $1,200.00 per month to the child and $1,700.00 per month to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance. The 2nd respondent is estopped from further claiming the reliefs prayed in the application. It is stated that, on 1.9.2010, the 2nd respondent, after requesting the learned counsel to obtain permission from the Hon’ble Court to travel India to see her father, left India. Apart from all these things, the order also indicates that, the 2nd respondent herein received amounts to her satisfaction. 9. In view of the above, the issue is, whether the proceedings in D.V.C. should continue? 10. It is also to be noted here that, the allegations of harassment, if any, were alleged to have been made by the 1st and 3rd petitioners in USA. There is absolutely no averment of any harassment, much less any demand for dowry, while they were in India or when the complainant came over to India leaving her husband in USA. In respect of these allegations made, she initiated prosecution in the court of competent jurisdiction in USA and thereafter, an order came to be passed, which remained unchallenged. In fact, as stated by me earlier, the material on record discloses that she received amounts to her satisfaction and thereafter, came back to India and then again initiated various proceedings including the present case for various reliefs, including monetary relief. 11. When the order passed by the Court in USA has become final and in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the combined High Court at Hyderabad, in Criminal Petition No.627 of 2011, dated 8.12.2017, quashing the proceedings, while taking into consideration the order of Circuit Court of 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois, USA, more particularly, the observations made, that, the parties have already settled their claims, which has become final, continuation of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.35 of 2010 would be an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in D.V.C.No.35 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.