G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 06/12/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the appellants under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short CrPC) for quashing the proceedings of CC No. 240/2002 pending in the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in relation to offences under S.498A and S.406, Indian Penal Code read with S.4 and S.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (for short 'the Dowry Act'). Bhavani Shireesha, the eldest daughter of respondent no. 2 Shrimati D. Shaila, is a doctor by profession. She was married to appellant no. 1 Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri who is working as Software Engineer at New Jersey, USA on 22/04/1998 at Hyderabad. Before marriage, the appellants and their parents demanded Rs. 5 lakh cash, 50 tola gold jewellery and Rs. 75,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam as dowry. They also demanded transfer of the ground floor of the residential house belonging to respondent no. 2 and her husband in favour of the parents of the appellants. Respondent no. 2 and her husband agreed to pay Rs. 4 lakh cash, 60 tola gold jewellary and Rs. 75,000/- towards Adapaduchu Katnam as dowry. They also agreed to bequeath the ground portion of their house in the name of their daughter. The appellants and their parents accepted the proposal and performed betrothal on 16/04/1998. Thereafter, the parents of the appellants demanded Zen car and threatened to cancel the engagement unless the car is given. This compelled the husband of respondent no. 2 to raise loan of Rs. 4 lakh and purchased the car, which is said to have been kept at the disposal of the parents of the appellants. After marriage, the appellants left for USA, but Shireesha Bhavani stayed back at Hyderabad with their parents because she was undergoing training as House Surgeon. After completing the training, Shireesha Bhavani went to USA along with the parents of the appellants. She stayed at New Jersey from 01/11/1998 to 02/12/1998. During this period, Shireesha Bhavani was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants and their parents on the ground that she did not bring enough dowry. On 03/12/1998 she went to Maryland (U.S.A.) and stayed with her relatives. In April 1999, the parents of the appellants returned to India. On 05/04/1999, appellant No. 1 instituted divorce petition in Superior Court at New Jersey and an ex parte decree was passed in his favour on 15/12/1999.
(3.) IN the meanwhile, Shireesha Bhavani wrote letter dated 13/04/1999 to her parents complaining of cruelty by the appellants and their parents. She disclosed that while she was staying with the parents of the appellants at Hyderabad, the mother in law always complained of lack of dowry and abused and criticized her and asked her to do menial job. She further disclosed that appellant no. 1 and his brother harassed and also pressurized her to bring additional money for purchase of a house at Hyderabad in the name of the in laws. She gave detailed account of the alleged harassment and torture meted out by the appellants and their parents. Thereupon, respondent no. 2 filed complaint dated 26/08/1999 in the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the concerned Magistrate') detailing therein the facts relating to demand of dowry by the appellants and their parents and the incidents of cruelty and harassment to which her daughter was subjected at Hyderabad and New Jersey. Respondent no. 2 also alleged that immediately after marriage, the appellants and their parents complained about lack of dowry by saying that appellant no. 1 could have been married for a dowry of Rs. 35 lakhs. Another allegation made by respondent no. 2 was that her daughter was driven out of the house with an indication that she will be allowed to return only after the demands of the accused appellants and their parents are met. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under S.156(3) CrPC. This led to registration of Crime No. 54/1999 at Women Police Station, CID, Hyderabad. On 18/09/2000 the Inspector of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad submitted final report with the prayer that the case may be treated as closed due to lack of evidence. He mentioned that much progress could not be made due to non availability of de facto victim and other key witnesses in India and there was no immediate prospect of their coming to India. He also mentioned that the accused party returned the personal belongings including gold jewellery to the de facto victim in U.S.A. and that a decree of divorce had been passed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County. The Investigating Officer also made a reference to the direction given by Additional Director General of Police, CID to close the case due to lack of evidence.;