IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +CRIMINAL PETITION No.8047 OF 2022 %24.04.2025 #Between: Kasarla Aruna …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and another …Respondents +CRIMINAL PETITION No.9220 OF 2022 Kasarla Shashank …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri.Siddarth CB Counsel for the respondents : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 2. Sri.R.Siva Sai Swarup for Respondent No.2 +CRIMINAL PETITION No.925 OF 2023 Kasarla Sushanth Babu …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri.Siddarth CB Counsel for the respondents : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 2. Sri.Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: <Gist: CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. LAWS (SC)-2022-2-27 2. Criminal Appeal No 2379 of 2024 3. CRLP 1036 of 2015 4. 1991 SCC (3) Page 451 5. CS(OS) 990 of 2010 This Court made the following: CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +CRIMINAL PETITION No.8047 OF 2022 %24.04.2025 #Between: Kasarla Aruna …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and another …Respondents +CRIMINAL PETITION No.9220 OF 2022 Kasarla Shashank …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and another …Respondents +CRIMINAL PETITION No.925 OF 2023 Kasarla Sushanth Babu …Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and another …Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 24.04.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Yes/No _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 APHC010543712022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8047/2022 Between: Kasarla Aruna ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION No.9220 OF2022 Between: Kasarla Shashank ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIDDARTH C B Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. R SIVA SAI SWARUP CRIMINAL PETITION No.925 OF 2023 Between: Kasarla Sushanth Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SIDDARTH C B Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. RAVURI LEELA SAI SAMPATH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 8047, 9220 of 2022 and 925 of 2023 COMMON ORDER : 1. All the criminal petitions are filed challenging the CC 2133 of 2022 on the file of 1stAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. CRLP 925 of 2023 is filed by Accused no 1, CRLP 8048 of 2022 is filed by Accused no 2 who is the mother of the 1stAccused and CRLP 9220 of 2022 is filed by the brother of the 1st Accused. The 1st Accused is the husband of the 2nd respondent. Thus all the three petitions are heard together and a common order is passed. 3. The second respondent has filed a complaint alleging offences under section 498-A, 506 of I PC, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The police registered crime 685 of 2021 on 29th November 2021, the police after investigation filed a charge sheet by showing all the petitioners as absconding. The petitioners as on the date of filing of the charge sheet were residing in Georgia USA. As seen from the averments of the complaint the marriage of the second respondent and the 1st accused was performed on 23rd October 2019 at Visakhapatnam. The alliance of marriage was through a CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 matrimonial website, Telugu matrimony. As seen from the allegations in the complaint the 1staccused was working as a software engineer in USA and that at the time of marriage on demand from the accused 1 and 2, the parents of the 2nd respondent gave dowry and also performed the marriage by bearing all the expenses. It is also stated in the complaint that the 2ndrespondent was presented with 600 grams of gold and diamond jewellery by her parents. The 2ndrespondent joined the company of the 1staccused at Secunderabad soon after marriage. The 1staccused left to USA in the first week of November 2019. 4. It is stated in the complaint that the 2ndaccused had pressurised the 2ndrespondent to have wine and was also physically and mentally abusing the 2ndrespondent by using foul language. It is also alleged that the 2ndaccused had physically assaulted the 2ndrespondent. It is also alleged in the complaint that when the same was brought to the notice of the 1st accused, the 2ndrespondent was made to apologize to the 2ndaccused though the 2ndrespondent did not commit any mistake. It is also stated that the 1staccused delayed sending the visa papers for travel of the second respondent and that the second respondent reached USA only in the month of CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 September 2021 and stayed in USA for a period of about over 2 months and then returned back to India in November 2021. 5. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused No 1 was harassing the 2ndrespondent during her stay in USA and that she was isolated in the house at USA without any financial support or other support. It is stated that the 3rd accused also supported the 1st accused and that the 3rd accused and his wife also insulted the 2ndrespondent.The 2ndrespondent unable to bear the harassment had also complained to the police in USA and ultimately left the country and came back to India. Soon after returning to India, the 2ndrespondent has filed the complaint before the police and the police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioners. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners 6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, appearing for the petitioners submits that except for vague and omnibus allegations against the petitioners there are no specific allegations against any of the petitioners. There are no details as to the dates of the alleged harassment meted to the second respondent. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that, all the allegations of the alleged harassment if any are to be considered by this court have CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 admittedly occurred beyond the territorial limits of India. The alleged harassment of the 2ND respondent even as per the complaint allegedly happened in Georgia, USA, as such, the police at Vishakapatnam could not have taken cognizance of the complaint. It is submitted that only for maintaining the complaint the 2ND respondent has resorted to making false and baseless allegations against the petitioners. 7. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the 1stpetitioner left to USA soon after his marriage, the 2ndrespondent stayed for a very brief period at Hyderabad with the 1stand 2nd Accused. After the 1staccused left for USA the 2nd respondent went to Visakhapatnam to stay with her parents. It is also submitted that the 3rd accused never stayed in India along with the 1staccused and the 2ndrespondent. It is also submitted that the 3rd accused was not in India even as on the date of registration of the crime. It is also submitted that the 1st accused and the 2nd respondent have obtained a decree of divorce from a court in USA. 8. It is also submitted that the 2nd Respondent went to USA on 2nd September 2021 and that she was allegedly physically and mentally harassed by the 1st Accused at USA and that the 3rd accused also had supported the 1st accused. It is further CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 submitted that the 2nd respondent did not stay for long in USA and had returned to India after 2 months of stay in USA and had filed the false complaint. 9. The learning senior counsel submits that the complaint is vexatious in nature and the alleged allegations are also vague and without specific dates. The omnibus allegations against the petitioners cannot attract the provisions of Section 498 A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 10. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of KahkashanKausar @ Sonam V/s State of Bihar 1. The Hon`ble Supreme Court has held that, when specific allegations against the in laws of the respondent wife are not established allowing prosecution in absence of clear allegations against the inlaws would result in abuse of the process of law. 11. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the matter of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, the allegations levelled by the complainant if are vague, general and sweeping, without specifying the date and time of 1 LAWS (SC)-2022-2-27 2 Criminal Appeal No 2379 of 2024 CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 the alleged instances of harassment, such a complaint cannot sustain the scrutiny of trial. When specific allegations against the in laws of the respondent wife are not established allowing prosecution in absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in abuse of the process of law. Submissions on behalf of the 2nd Respondent 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent submits that the complaint as well as the statements recorded by the police during the course of the investigation would indicate that specific accusations are made against the petitioners. It is submitted that the contentions raised are all disputed questions of fact which have to be decided in the course of the trial. It is submitted that this Court ought not to conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact. 13. It is also submitted that the divorce obtained by the 1staccused in the United States of America cannot be relied upon for any purposes, as the marriage of the 1staccused and the 2nd respondent was performed in India as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is also submitted that the second respondent was not residing in United States of America and the second respondent has also filed a counter before the Court in USA that she is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 court in USA. It is submitted that the decree of divorce obtained by the 1staccused from the court in USA cannot be of any relevance for the purpose of this case. 14. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent places reliance on the following judgements. Mohd Rafiuddin Ahmed rep by his GPA Vs. State of Telangana3. The learned Judge of this court has dismissed the quash petition on the ground that the disputed question of fact need to be addressed by the trial court. Y.Narasimha Rao & Others Vs. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the foreign Decree of Divorce is not admissible in absence of the Certificate under Section 86 of the Evidence Act. Similar view was taken by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Sheenam Raheja V/s Amit Wadhwa5. Reasoning of the Court : 15. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent and the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire record. 3 CRLP 1036 of 2015 4 1991 SCC (3) Page 451 5 CS(OS) 990 of 2010 CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 16. The marriage of the first accused and the second respondent was performed on 23.10.2019 and soon after the marriage, the second respondent joined her marital home in Secunderabad. The first Accused left for USA in the first week of November 2019. The allegations in the complaint are that the first accused used to harass the second respondent over phone from USA and that he did not send the Visa documents for her travel to USA. It is also stated that the second accused has physically assaulted the second respondent. It is also stated that the 3rd accused is also involved in the harassment and that he resides in Atlanta, USA. It is also stated in the complaint that the second respondent reached Atlanta USA on 2nd September 2021 and that she found that the first accused was addicted to gambling and chatting with women and that he threatened to abandon the second respondent in USA. It is also stated that the second respondent also sought the help of the cops in USA. It is alleged that, the first accused has physically assaulted the second respondent in USA and went to the 3rd accused house, the 3rd accused also supported his brother and as such the second respondent came back to India on 26th November 2021 and filed a complaint. CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 17. The statement of the second respondent before the police has reflected the averments made in the complaint the police have recorded the statements of as many as 7 witnesses and filed the charge sheet. 18. Admittedly there are no specific allegations with specific dates of the alleged harassment which the petitioners are alleged to have meted to the second respondent. The first accused left the country in the first week of November, 2019 and the second respondent reached USA in September 2021. After the first accused left to USA the second respondent was staying with her parents at Visakhapatnam. Allegations that the first accused was harassing the second respondent over phone lack details of the dates and other specific particulars. The allegation against the second accused with regard to the alleged physical abuse also lacks the specific details. Even assuming the physical assault by the 2nd accused on the 2nd respondent, the same ought to have happened or occurred at Secunderabad. The Court at Visakhapatnam could not have taken cognizance of the said incidents. There are absolutely no details as to the dates or the place where the alleged harassment took place. Insofar as the 3rd accused is concerned there are absolutely no allegations against the 3rd CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 accused which can attract the provisions of section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 19. The complaint and the statements of the witnesses are bereft of details. Substantiating the allegations of harassment over phone without any specific details is difficult and cannot withstand the scrutiny of trial. 20. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court or to give effect to any other order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and with great care and caution and that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. 21. Thus prime facie satisfaction of the court for considering a quash proceedings is essential and the prima facie satisfaction can be arrived at by perusing the record. 22. The second respondent lived for very few days in the company of the first accused in India. The second respondent never lived with the 3rd accused and the first accused under CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 one roof in India. The second respondent lived for a few days under one roof in India along with the second accused. The second respondent went to USA for a very brief period and came back to India and filed a complaint. The alleged instances of harassment by the first accused took place in USA. There are evidently no allegations against the 3rd accused which would attract the provisions of Section 498 A IPC or Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The specific details of the alleged physical harassment by the second accused are also missing in the complaint. The place of alleged offence is also missing. 23. The specific details of the alleged harassment are also missing from the charge sheet as well, and the statements recorded by the police. The allegations of harassment by the first accused who had been living in USA over phone would have an entirely different complexion and such allegations are to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 24. In absence of the specific allegations and the details relating to the alleged allegations, would render all such allegations as general in nature and omnibus in character. Thus the allegations against the petitioners are evidently omnibus, CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 vague, sweeping and are made only for maintaining the complaint against the petitioners. 25. Section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and in laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However the recent trends in matrimonial litigation across the country has seen considerable increase in the number of cases. There is a greater dissatisfaction and friction surrounding the institution of marriage and all these have contributed for increased litigation and increased deployment of section 498-A IPC as an instrument to settle the personal scores against the husband and his relatives. The protective legislation is misused merrily by levelling omnibus and vague allegations against the husband, his immediate and distant relatives and sometimes even the friends of the husband. 26. The present case is another classic case where the wife has complained of harassment by her husband, his mother and his brother without any specific details. This court deems it an appropriate case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the case against the petitioners. CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 27. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. CC.No.2133 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakapatnam is hereby quashed against the petitioners. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 24.04.2025 LR Copy to be marked B/o.KGM CRLP.Nos. 8047 of 2022, 9220 of 2022 & 925 of 2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH N. CRLP.Nos.8047, 9220 of 2022 and 925 of 2023 Dated 24.04.2025 KGM